SYNDICATE BANK BANGALORE Vs. A RAGHUPATHY BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has challenged in this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge, directing the appellant-Bank to pay the difference of salary to the respondent, during the period of suspension, after he was acquitted by a Criminal Court.

(2.) APPELLANT is a nationalised Bank. At the relevant time, respondent was working at the Ilkal Branch of the Bank. Against the respondent a criminal case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes arid Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in case No. 19 of 1994 before the II additional Sessions Court, Raichur. Respondent was taken into custody by the police and thereafter he was given to judicial custody. Appellant in terms of Regulation 12 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter for short called as "the Regulations"), placed the respondent under suspension, a according to the prevailing rules he was paid subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. The criminal case ended in an acquittal giving the benefit of doubt to the respondent. Thereafter the Bank revoked the suspension order and reinstated the respondent into service. Respondent made a representation to the Bank for payment of full salary and allowances for the period of suspension. The said request was declined by an order dated 5-9-1996 as per Annexure-F. Respondent preferred a writ petition challenging the said order in W. P. No. 7837 of 1997. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 5-9-1996 and directed the Bank to pay the difference of salary to the respondent from the date of suspension, namely 17-8-1993 till the date of revocation of suspension on 15-4-1995, with simple interest at the rate of 6% p. a. by order dated 17-11-2003. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant relying on Regulation 15 contends, an employee is entitled to full salary during the period of suspension, only if he is fully exonerated or that the suspension was unjustifiable. In the instant case, he was kept under suspension because of the criminal case and giving him the benefit of doubt he has been acquitted; he is not fully exonerated, thus both the aforesaid conditions are not satisfied. Therefore, appellant was fully justified in declining him to grant full salary and the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in setting aside the order of the appellant.