M SRIDEVI Vs. SYNDICATE BANK MANIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner, who is a bank employee, has challenged the suspension order dated 21-3-1992, passed BY the deputy general manager of the syndicate bank in exercise of the powers under clause 19.12 (b) of bipartite settlement. The petitioner has prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the suspension order aforesaid as well as the modified order dated 8-9-1992 contained in annexure - h. The petitioner further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the petitioner's reinstatement and to grant her All consequential reliefs including financial benefits. Without going into the details about the facts of the case, it may be mentioned that the petitioner who is a permanent employee of the syndicate bank as typist-cum-clerk, had been appointed in the year 1984 has been suspended pending enquiry against charge, vide order dated 21st march, 1992, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure-c to this petition. The petitioner has challenged the said order as being illegal and without jurisdiction. I have heard Sri p. Vishwanath shetty learned senior advocate assisted BY Sri s.a. kalagi an advocate and Sri ramdas on behalf of the opposite parties. Sri p. Vishwanath shetty learned senior advocate submitted that the reason for the suspension order being illegal, null and void is that no charge has been issued against the petitioner either on or before the date of passing of the suspension order and as no charge-sheet had been issued nor no date for enquiry had been fixed, the suspension order could not be passed. He submitted that when certain powers are conferred and it is provided that these powers are to be exercised in certain circumstances that the mode is provided for exercise thereof with reference to the time, that power will have to be exercised in that manner alone and other modes are closed. Sri P.V.Shetty, also made a reference to a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in this Connection Reported in N.V.Ramanadham v State of Bank of India. On behalf of the bank Sri ramdas has disputed these contentions BY saying that suspension order could be passed even in contemplation of the disciplinary action and it is not necessary to issue the charge-sheet before issuing the suspension order and made a reference to para 19.12 of bipartite settlement. In the alternative Sri ramdas submitted that as per Amendment in view of the expression used in the Rules as amended for expression "pending enquiry", expression 'pending such enquiry' or 'initiation of such enquiry have been substituted and so it is not necessary that enquiry should be pending even at the initiation of such, enquiry, suspension order can be issued. I have applied my mind to the contention of the learned counsels for the parties. The validity or otherwise of the suspension order so far as this ground is concerned, will depend upon the construction of clause 19.12 of bipartite settlement. The material clauses to be considered are clauses 19.12(a) and (b), they are being quoted herewith extenso.