BIMALENDU CHATTOPADHYAY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, an erstwhile employee of the State Bank of India has approached this Court primarily for a direction upon his employer to make payment of interest on delayed payment of his salary and certain other emoluments for a certain period during which he was kept under suspension. The writ petition has been filed after his superannuation. While he was in service, an order of suspension was issued against him and he was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding on allegations of certain irregularities. He was placed suspension with effect from 11 March 1992. In the disciplinary proceeding, charges were issued against him on forty five counts. After enquiry, the disciplinary authority found nineteen of the charges conclusively proved and three of them partly proved. He was imposed punishment of "Reduction of middle management cadre scale II" and he was placed at the initial stage of time scale. It was also decided by the disciplinary authority that no salary and allowance, increments etc. other than the subsisting allowance already released to him would be paid to him during the period of his suspension. Appeal was filed by the petitioner within the hierarchy of the administrative authorities of the bank but the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed a review petition before the Review Committee of the bank itself. The Reviewing authority in substance did not interfere with the finding of the Disciplinary and the Appellate authority. The penalty imposed against him however was modified and the Review Committee of the bank reduced the penalty, directing reduction of pay by four stages with cumulative effect in the time scale in Middle Management Grade Scale III. The Review Committee also directed that the period of suspension may also be treated as on duty. The petitioner was paid arrears salary and allowance from 12th March 1992 to 7 May 1997 after reduction of subsistence allowance already paid to him. The petitioner was informed of the order of the Review Committee was on 31 December 2001.

(2.) The petitioner has superannuated from his service on 31st March, 2002 and has been paid his retinal benefits. After his superannuation the petitioner made a claim for interest at the rate of 18 per cent on overdue amount for the period during which he remained suspended but was subsequently paid arrears pay and allowance as per the direction of the Review Committee. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner became entitled to additional allowance on passing two parts of the CAIIB examination to the tune of Rs. 250/- per month but while making payment of the salary and allowance during his period of suspension, the said sum was left out. The other allowance the petitioner claims was not computed was officiating allowance he was receiving on the ground that he was officiating as Development Officer (P & SB), zonal office, Kolkata. After his retirement, the petitioner started making representations for clearance of his full dues as also interest on the overdue amount. Such representations were made on 12th April, 2002, 15th November 2002 and 24th December, 2002. Formal demand for justice was sent on 20th April 2003. The root of his demand under these heads was direction of the Review Committee that he was to be treated on duty during his period of suspension, and argument of the petitioner is that such direction invalidates the order of suspension.

(3.) The respondent bank has questioned the legality of the claim of the petitioner made after he superannuated from service and received his retinal dues without raising any protest. It has been argued on behalf of the bank that this petition has been filed as an afterthought. On merit, it has been submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any sum as interest on overdue amount, as the obligation on the part of the bank to pay him full salary during the period he remained under suspension accrued only after the order of the Review Committee was passed. Dismissal of this writ petition has also been sought on the ground that adjudication of this proceeding involves dealing with disputed questions of fact.