KUL BHUSAN CHOPRA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by an officer of a Nationalised Bank, now under suspension, is directed against the order of suspension of the petitioner " pending disciplinary action" and raises some important questions as to whether a Nationalised Bank would be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as to the stage at which and the circumstances in which as officer of the Bank could be suspended, pending disciplinary action, whether the right to receive salary would be property within the meaning of Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India and as to whether non-payment of salary by virtue of an improper order of suspension from service could attract the fundamental right to property.

(2.) ON the material date, the petitioner was working as a Branch Manager of the Jadiala Guru Branch of the Punjab National Bank, a nationalised Banking institution, respondent No. 1. Pursuant to certain reports against the petitioner, the Bank deputed an Inspector to investigate the matter in December, 1976. The reports of the Inspector of January 1, 1977, and January 3, 1977, allegedly revealed that the petitioner had on many occasions violated the Departmental instructions/rules particularly in the matter of granting loans and had committed a number of malpractices. The reports of the Inspector are said to have been forwarded to the Development Manager for further investigation, who, in his report of January 27, 1977, upheld the reports of the Inspector. The report of the Development Manager was eventually said to have come up for consideration before the Regional Manager, who on an examination found that the matter had financial implications calling for further investigation. He directed the Development Manager to visit the Branch personally and make a detailed report. Eventually, the investigation was entrusted to the Area Manager, who, in his report of April 1, 1977 found that the petitioner, as well as certain other employees of the Bank, were guilty of certain lapses. On receipt of the report of the Area Manager, the Regional Manager observed in his note of May 9, 1977, as follows : From the report, it is very clear that the B/mgr Shri K. B. Chopra, has committed serious lapses and malpractices. He has also indulged in corrupt activities and in connivance with few parties has given unauthorised accommodation beyond his loaning powers. He has highly misused his position. Shri Kapur from Model Town, Pathankot, be got relieved immediately, with instructions to take charge of BO Jandiala Guru. After taking charge, instruction be sent to him from the office to suspend Shri Chopra. Immediately thereafter a regular chargesheet be served on him, on the basis of findings of Area Manager. On the basis of the aforesaid observations of the Regional Manager, the petitioner was suspended from the service of the Bank vide the Bank's letter of May 24, 1977 (Annexure P 1) with effect from May 26, 1977, under the provisions of Clause 12 of the Punjab National Bank Office Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977, for short, the Regulation, "pending disciplinary action. " The officer was further informed that during the period of suspension, he will be paid subsistence allowance in terms of the Rules, It, however, appears that subsequent to the suspension of the petitioner, the examination of the matter at certain levels, in particular its examination by the Vigilance Department of the Bank revealed that a thorough investigation was justified as a sequel to which further investigation was carried on after which the matter was referred to the Chief Vigilance Commission. Government of India, as required by Clause 19 of the Regulations. The result has been that even though the petitioner remained suspended during all this period, "pending disciplinary action", a formal charge sheet was served on the petitioner only on or about May 16, 1978, after a lapse of more than one year from the date of suspension. Thereafter, the petitioner took some time to make inspection of the records and the disciplinary proceedings are still at the initial stage. The present petition was filed by the petitioner on April 27, 1978, before the charge-sheet had been served on the petitioner.

(3.) ON this more or less admitted hypothesis, petitioner assails the validity of the order of suspension, inter alia, on the grounds that being a suspension virtually for the purpose of investigation, it was beyond the scope of Clause 12 of the Regulations and, therefore, punitive in nature, that, in any event, even if the order of suspension was not ab initio void in that it was made in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, as envisaged by the Regulations, it became void when instead of initiating disciplinary proceedings, the Bank embarked upon an indefinite course of virtual investigation and took more than one year to frame a charge-sheet, and that the deprivation of the petitioner's right to receive salary during the period of suspension constituted an infraction of the petitioner's fundamental right to property in so far as the deprivation was brought about by an illegal order of suspension, but for which the petitioner would have been entitled in law to his usual salary being paid to him throughout the period of suspension.