KULDEEP RAJ SHARMA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to direct the Respondents to treat the suspension period of the Petitioner from 5.8.2000 to 20.7.2002 as period spent on duty for all intents and purposes and to direct the Respondents to grant the consequential benefits including monetary benefits and to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.7.2002 vide which the suspension period of the Petitioner has been treated as period not spent on duty and the same shall not be reckoned for any purpose whatsoever and order dated 28.10.2004 and 16.9.2008 vide which the representations of the Petitioner were rejected by non-speaking order and without application of mind.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition are that the Petitioner was appointed as a cashier in August, 1965 in Laxmi Commercial Bank, Ballimaran, Delhi. Later on Laxmi Commercial Bank merged into Canara Bank in 1988. The Petitioner has two sons named Pradeep Sharma and Manish Sharma. His second son Manish Sharma married one Anita Sharma in the year 2000, but she died on 1.8.2000 and a case FIR No. 1643/2000 under Sections 498A/304B, 302/34, IPC and under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against all the family members of the Petitioner. After the incident, the Petitioner was placed under suspension by the Dy. General Manager, Canara Bank vide its officer order No. DC/DAL/700/2000 dated 5.8.2000. The Petitioner and his wife were granted bail by Sessions Court of Ghaziabad (U.P.) on 30.09.2000. Consequently the suspension order of the Petitioner was revoked by Respondent No. 2 vide officer Order No. DC/DAC/1173/2002 dated 20.7.2002 but his suspension period was treated as period "not spent on duty" and it was further ordered that the same shall not be reckoned for any purpose whatsoever. The learned Sessions Court finally acquitted the Petitioner as well as his family members from the charges vide order dated 19.1.2004. The Petitioner made a representation against the order dated 20.7.2002 for treating his suspension period as spent on duty for all purposes and intents. The representation of the Petitioner was rejected, hence the present writ petition.

(3.) Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was placed under suspension as he was arrested in a criminal case registered under Sections 498A, 304B, 302/34, IPC and under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner was granted interim bail vide orders dated 30th September, 2000 by the Sessions Court of Ghaziabad and thereafter his suspension order was revoked by the Respondent vide order dated 20th July, 2002 and he was restored back in his service. Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner was honorably acquitted by the Court vide orders dated 19.1.2004. With the said acquittal, which has attained finality, the Petitioner is entitled to claim the difference of the salary amount for the suspension period w.e.f. 5.8.2000 to 20.7.2002 and for treating the said period as spent by the Petitioner on duty for all intents and purposes. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to the said full salary for the said suspension period under Rule 15 of Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. In support of her arguments Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in General Manager, UCO Bank and Anr. v. M. Venuranganath, 2008 AIR(SC) 732.