GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK Vs. KULDEEP RAJ SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.02.2010 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in WP (C) 7383/2009 as also against the order dated 20.09.2010 passed by the said learned single Judge in the review petition No.243/2010. By virtue of the judgment dated 09.02.2010, the respondent's writ petition was allowed and by virtue of the order dated 20.09.2010, the appellant's review petition was dismissed.

(2.) The issue sought to be raised in the present appeal pertains to the manner in which the period for which the respondent Kuldeep Raj Sharma was under suspension, that is, from 05.08.2000 to 20.07.2002, is to be dealt with. The respondent's claim for difference in salary as well as of treating the said period of suspension as having been "spent on duty" was allowed by the learned single Judge by virtue of the impugned judgment / order. It is the case of the appellant that the said decision runs contrary to the regulations and also to the Supreme Court decision which had been relied upon by the learned single Judge in the case of General Manager, UCO Bank and Another v. M. Venuranganath, 2007 13 SCC 251.

(3.) Before we examine the rival contentions of the parties, it would be relevant to notice some facts. The respondent Kuldeep Raj Sharma was working with the appellant. The respondent had two sons Pradeep Sharma and Manish Sharma. The younger son (Manish Sharma) married one Anita Sharma sometime in the year 2000. Unfortunately, Anita Sharma died an unnatural death on 01.08.2000. A criminal case came to be registered under FIR No.1643/2000 at police station Sahibabad under Sections 498- A/304-B/302/34 IPC and under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The respondent was arrested in connection with that criminal case and by virtue of an office order bearing No. DC/DAC/700/2000 dated 05.08.2000, the respondent was placed under suspension. Subsequently, the respondent and his wife were granted bail by the Sessions Court, Ghaziabad (U.P.) on 30.09.2000. By an order dated 20.07.2002 issued by the Deputy General Manager of the appellant, the suspension order was revoked. The revocation of suspension order clearly indicated that the question of suspension of the respondent was reviewed and it had been decided to revoke the same. The suspension was revoked from the date of reporting for duty by the said respondent at the appellants Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi. The order dated 20.07.2002 also indicated that upon revocation of suspension, the respondent would be paid salary and allowances which he was drawing prior to the date of suspension. Furthermore, the said order dated 20.07.2002 stipulated that the period spent under suspension by the respondent shall not be treated as having been "spent on duty" and the same shall not be reckoned for any purpose whatsoever.