S JAYARAJAN Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges an order of ad-interim suspension vide Annexure-F dated 15.3.1993 and also the charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 17.3.1993 vide Annexure-J on the ground that it violates Articles 14, 16, 21, 23, 42 and 43 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner has joined the services of the respondent-Bank in the year 1971 initially as a Casual Labourer and his services were regularised. It seems, he belongs to the Schedule Caste community, and became the President of the Reserve Bank of India Class-IV Employees Union fighting against the action on the part of the Management in respect of conditions of service. The respondent-Bank placed him under suspension on 21.6.1979 without issuing any charge-memo or held any enquiry and his services were terminated by an order dated 9.2.1980 under Regulation 25(2)(b) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. It seems a criminal case is pending against him under Section 307 IPC., and, he was discharged from the allegations by the Criminal Court on 18.6.1980. The petitioner challenges the order of termination stated above in Writ Petition No. 4190/1980 before this Court. In a batch of Writ Petitions Regulation 25(2) of the Regulations was challenged before this Court and by a common order on 17.12.1981 this Court struck-down the regulations as unconstitutional and the order of termination was quashed and a direction was given that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits in pursuance of the order passed in the Writ Petition. The respondent-Bank preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1948/82. Ultimately, on 11.11.1992 the appeal preferred by the respondent-Bank was dismissed by the Supreme Court-Annexure-A. Subsequently, the petitioner seems to have made a representation on 20.1.1993 Annexure-B to request the respondent to implement the decision of this Court as affirmed by the Supreme Court. On 12.3.93 vide Annexure-D the petitioner was asked to report for duty on any working day and by Annexure-E he was informed that the period during which he was away must be treated as on duty and he must be placed in the scale of Rs. 980-2100 and his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 2245/-. Thereafter, it seems the amount was paid to the petitioner by way of cheque. On the same day, by the impugned order Annexure-F the petitioner was kept under suspension. Subsequently, a charge-memo has been issued to the petitioner on 17.3.1993 Annexure J which the petitioner challenges before this Court.

(3.) The petitioner alleges the order of suspension passed against the petitioner is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended by the petitioner, once a person has been exonerated, it is not open to the authorities to take action against him in respect of the same subject matter. As such, keeping the petitioner on suspension and issuing charge-sheet is in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended by the petitioner that the order of suspension and issue of a charge-sheet is malafide especially when the order of reinstatement itself has been passed after 13 years and the action now sought to be taken after a long lapse of time and after inordinate delay itself proves the malafide intention of the respondent. The petitioner alleges the order of suspension as well as the issue of charge-sheet are mala fides. The petitioner contends that the action against the petitioner is unjustified when the subject matter of the same is pending before the criminal Court. It is stated that no departmental action can be taken against the petitioner when the subject matter of the proceeding is pending before the criminal Court. It is pointed out that, when the petitioner is facing a criminal trial in respect of the same subject matter which is grounded on the same facts, prejudice will be caused to the petitioner in the defence of the criminal proceedings.