STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. BIMALENDU CHATTOPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals, being F.M.A. 1118 of 2012 and F.M.A. 1119 of 2012, are arising out of the common judgment and order dated 24.11.2011 passed by the Single Bench in W.P. No. 436(W) of 2004. The writ petition was filed by an employee of the State Bank of India for a direction upon his employer to make payment of interest on delayed payment of his salary and certain other emoluments for the period during which he was kept under suspension. It appears that he was under suspension with effect from 12th March, 1992 to 7th May, 1997. Departmental enquiry was initiated and punishment was inflicted upon him. After the disciplinary enquiry, the authority found 19 charges were proved against the petitioner and out of them three were found partly proved. He was imposed with punishment of reduction of middle management cadre scale-II and 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. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. A review petition was filed before the Review Committee of the Bank. The Reviewing Authority did not interfere with the finding of the guilt recorded by Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority but, at the same time, reduced the punishment of the petitioner and directed reduction of pay by four stages with cumulative effect in the time scale in middle management grade scale-Ill. The Reviewing Authority also directed that the period of suspension may also be treated as on-duty. The order was passed for payment of the salary and allowances from 12th March, 1992 to 7th May, 1997 after reduction of subsistence allowance already paid to him. The order was communicated to the petitioner on 31st December, 2001. The petitioner retired from his service on 31st March, 2002. He filed a writ petition on 19.6.2004 claiming interest of his salary, allowances and other emoluments payable during the period 12.3.1992 to 7.5.1997. The Bank contested the claim. The Single Bench allowed the writ application and ordered the payment of interest on equitable grounds relying upon the decision in Anil Kr. Saha v. The Board of Councilors of Nawadeep Municipality & Ors.,2009 4 CalHN 694. Other decisions have also been referred by the Single Bench. It has been observed that the petitioner had been deprived of his legitimate dues during the period he remained under suspension in terms of full salary and allowance, for which he ought to be compensated with for delayed payment of such salary and allowance by way of interest. The interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum has been ordered to be paid uptil the date he was paid arrear salary and other dues in terms of the direction of the Review Committee.

(2.) The legality of the aforesaid order has been questioned by the State Bank of India and others by preferring an appeal, being F.M.A. 1118 of 2012; whereas the employee preferred an appeal, being F.M.A. 1119 of 2012, for enhancement of the rate of interest from 8.5% per annum to 18% per annum.

(3.) Shri Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank, has submitted that it is the case where the petitioner has not been exonerated. He was found guilty. He was under suspension. Only punishment was reduced and guilt also remained. The Review Committee has taken a decision on 31st December, 2001. Thus, till then, there was no right available to the petitioner to claim that amount. No equitable consideration is available to the petitioner. On the other hand, once he had been found guilty, it would be against equitable consideration to grant interest as ordered by the Single Bench. The decision in Anil Kumar Saha's case is completely distinguishable. The petitioner should consider himself lucky to have been awarded the full salary and benefit of increments for the aforesaid period by the Review Committee.