R GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order of the 2nd respondent, dt. June 27, 1990 by which he has been placed under suspension under Regulation 12 (b) of the Syndicate Bank Officer-Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations. The petitioner was recruited as a Probationary Officer in 1972, and after serving in many places, he was transferred to Perambur Branch as Branch Manager in August 1984 in which capacity he was working till he was kept under ad interim suspension pending enquiry. The order of suspension was passed on December 26, 1985 under Regulation 12 (1) (a) of the Regulations pending disciplinary proceedings. A chargesheet was issued to the petitioner in September, 1987 and another supplementary chargesheet was issued to him in October, 1987. When the charges were being enquired into and before final orders were passed on these two charge memos, another charge memo was issued on June 23, 1990. Subsequently the impugned order came to be passed referring to the earlier two charges issued in September and October, 1987 on the ground that a case in respect of a criminal offence alleged to have been committed by him is under investigation. The impugned order reads as follows : "whereas, in respect of those serious acts of misconduct, the following two charge-sheets have already been issued against you which are pending for enquiry/disposal : (1) Charge sheet No. 94 (PD; IRD/da-3 dated September 23, 1987 and (2) chargesheet No. 106/pd/ird/da-3 dt. October 30, 1987. Whereas, meanwhile a case against you in respect of criminal offences alleged to have been committed by you is under investigation/trial. Therefore, it has been decided to invoke the provisions of Regulation 12 (1) (b) of the above Regulations also at this stage, which provides for an officer-employee to be placed under suspension by the competent authority where a criminal case is pending for investigation/trial in a court of law and hence, you will continue to be under suspension under both the provisions of Regulations 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (b) of the abovesaid Regulations until further orders. Further, all other terms and conditions contained in the proceedings No. 94/pd : IPS/da-3 dated December 26, 1985 remain stand". This order is being challenged before me.

(2.) AT this stage, it is necessary to state that final orders have been passed on the earlier charge-sheets issued in September and October, 1987 on February 4, 1991 and December 27, 1990 respectively, proposing certain minor punishments. However, it stated in those orders that the order of suspension is being continued.

(3.) IT is alleged in the affidavit that one the enquiry is over, the suspension pending the disciplinary proceedings also expires. It is contended that under Regulation 12 (1) (a), the authority is not permitted to continue the order of suspension even after the enquiry is over. It is also stated that when once final orders were pronounced, keeping the petitioner under suspension under Regulation 12 (1) (a) cannot be sustained. It is further alleged that under Regulation 12, an officer-employee may be placed under suspension either pending disciplinary proceedings or pending any investigation into criminal offence or trial and that it cannot be invoked for both the contingencies. It is also alleged that there is no necessity to place the petitioner under suspension on the same cause of action which has already been dealt with by the department. It is stated that keeping the petitioner under suspension pending the trial for criminal offence is against the principles of natural justice and also under the Regulations.