PUNJAB NATINAL BANK Vs. DILIP KUMAR DE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 12th November, 1984 passed in Civil Rule No. 15273 (W) of 1984. The respondent Sri Dilip Kumar De moved a writ application inter alia, challenging the continuation of the order of suspension passed against him by the Punjab National Bank and also prayed for consequential reliefs on revocation of the order of suspension. On the said writ application, the aforesaid Civil Rule no. 15273 (W)of 1984 was issued by this court. It may be noted that the respondent writ petitioner Sri De impleaded Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, ministry of Finance, Department of Economic affairs, Banking Division along with other respondents viz, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the writ petition. The aforesaid Rule succeeded before this court by the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Judge on 12th november, 1984, but in the instant appeal preferred by the Chairman and Managing director, Punjab National Bank and three of its officers the respondent No. 1 in the writ petition, the Union of India, has not been impleaded. It appears that during the pendency of the writ proceeding, the learned trial Judge passed an order on 20th September, 1984, inter alia, directing the respondents of the writ petition to consider the case of the writ petitioner respondent Sri Dilip Kumar De in the light of the facts and circumstances referred to in the order of the learned trial judge. Pursuant to such direction of the learned trial Judge, the Deputy General manager (P), Punjab National Bank, had passed an order, inter alia, holding that the order of suspension passed against Sri De should not remain stayed and/or revoked because such order of revocation of the order of suspension and consequential posting of Sri de would not be in the interest of the Bank. It appears from the order passed by the Deputy general Manager (P), Punjab National Bank, that the said Deputy General Manager was of the view that delay in disposing of the criminal proceeding against Sri De by the concerned courts was not on account of any fault on the part of the Bank. It may be noted in this connection that the writ petitioner respondent, sri De entered the service of Punjab National bank in 1963 in a branch office in Calcutta and after completion of the probation period, he was appointed as a probationary clerk-cum-godown keeper sometime in December, 1963 and after six months, he was made permanent in the Bank's service. Thereafter, the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970 was passed and several Banks including Punjab National Bank were nationalised and since then the said Bank has been functioning as a nationalised bank. The writ petitioner respondent Sri De contended in the writ petition that in consideration of the meritorious service rendered by him, he was promoted to the rank of Accountant in december, 1973 and was posted in the branch office of the said Bank at Jodhpur in the State of Rajasthan and thereafter, he was transferred to the branch office Exhibition Road, patna in November, 1974 and thereafter, was again transferred to the regional office at Patna in April, 1975. While Sri De had been acting as an Accountant in the regional office at Patna, he was selected for the post of next higher rank i. e. Assistant Manager Officer-in-Charge and he was awaiting such posting order. Unfortunately, at this time, by a letter dated July 28, 1975 the Regional Manager, Punjab National bank, Patna being respondent No. 5 in the writ petition and the appellant No. 4 in the instant appeal placed Sri De under suspension on an allegation of the complicity of Sri De in some fraudulent transactions in the Bank's Branch at Jodhpur. The petitioner was arrested in connection with a F. I. R. lodged relating to the incident at Jodhpur Branch of the Bank and a criminal case was started against Sri De before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. It appears that on the basis of another F. I. R. lodged sometime in September, 1975 by the bank authorities at Patna, another criminal case was started in the Criminal Court at patna. The relevant facts concerning the said two criminal proceedings instituted at Jodhpur and Patna may be stated as hereunder: i) The case instituted before the learned judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur:

(2.) MR. De has contended in the writ petition that he was implicated in the criminal cases out of sheer malice. He has also contended that no transaction could be completed by a single man in a Banking transaction and at least 3 or 4 persons have to play their respective roles in completing a transaction of the Bank. Mr. D. e has also contended that as an Accountant he had to pass bills and/or cheques endoresed by other employees of the Bank in course of his official duties and such officers and employees had the primary duty of making necessary checks before placing the matter for signature by the Accountant. It has been contended by the writ petitioner Sri De that any person having a basic knowledge in the banking rules, regulations and procedures cannot reasonably think that on the allegations made in the F. I. R. Sri De, being an Accountant, could have been implicated in a charge of cheating and/or fraud. It has been contended by Sri De that if at all a case of criminal conspiracy to defraud the bank is to be established, several employees of the Bank who had taken part in completing the transaction in question must have been implicated in the criminal proceeding along with Sri de but the criminal proceeding against a solitary officer of the Bank viz. , Sri De is bound to fail on the ultimate analysis. Sri De has contended that on and from 1st October, 1977, the Board of Directors of the Punjab National bank framed a regulation known as Punjab national Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 under the authority given under Section 19 of the banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. By the said Discipline and Appeal Regulations, the procedure of discipline and appeal of the officers of the said Bank including the procedure for suspension and subsistence allowance has been indicated. Regulation 12 of the said Discipline and Appeal Regulations provides for that an officer employee may be placed under suspension by the competent authority: (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. It has also been provided for that an officer employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension with effect from the date of suspension if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours. Regulation 14 provides for subsistence allowance during suspension and it has been provided for that an officer employee who is placed under suspension shall during the period of suspension and subject to sub-regulations (2) to (4) would be entitled to receive payment from the Bank by way of subsistence allowance on the following scale: (a) Basic payfor the first three months of suspension one third of the basic pay which the officer employee was receiving on the date prior to the date of suspension. (b) For the subsequent periodafter three months from the date of suspension (i) where the enquiry is held departmentally by the bank half of the basic pay he was drawing, and (ii) Where the enquiry is held by an outside agency one-third of the basic pay for the next three months and half of the basic pay for the remaining period of suspension. For the entire period of suspension, dearness allowances and other allowances excepting conveyance allowance, entertainment allowance and special allowance would be calculated on the reduced pay as specified in (i) and (ii) of clause (a) of regulation 12. During the period of suspension, an officer employee shall not be entitled to occupy a rent free house or free use of the Bank's car or receipt of conveyance or entertainment allowance or special allowance.

(3.) MR. De has contended that in order to mitigate the sufferings caused on account of prolonged suspension, the Government of india, Ministry of Home Affairs/cabinet secretariat issued various guidelines to the administrative authorities providing procedures for periodical review of each case of suspension by the authorities higher than the disciplinary authorities. Copies of such instructions of the Government of India have been annexed to the writ petition. As the punjab National Bank is a nationlised Bank and as such an agency of the Central Government, similar instructions in the form of a memorandum being numbered 1/33/81 Vig. dated 29th June, 1981 was also issued by the government of India, Ministry of Finance, department of Economic Affairs (Banking division), New Delhi, inter alia, directing all the nationalised banks to follow similar guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home affairs/cabinet Secretariat for periodical review of similar cases at their end so that there cannot be any deviation from the policy decision taken by the Central Government in such or similar matters. A copy of the said memorandum has also been annexed to the writ petition. Mr. De has contended that initially he did not receive even the suspension allowance but ultimately suspension allowance was paid to him from the latter part of 1978 through the Bank's branch at Park Street, calcutta. Such payment from the branch office at Calcutta is being paid on the basis of the representation made by Sri De to the manager, D. A. C. , Punjab National Bank, personnel Division, Head Office at New delhi. Mr. De has contended that with the meagre suspension allowance at the rate of half of the basic pay drawn by him in 1975, it has become almost impossible for the petitioner to maintain himself and the members of his family and to defend two criminal cases, one at patna and the other at Jodhpur in Rajasthan. With the abnormal price hike of essential commodities in recent times, the misery of the appellant has aggravated beyond description. In the above perspective, Sri De made a representation from Calcutta on 16th June, 1981 to the Chairman and Managing Director, punjab National Bank, Head Office, New delhi for revoking the order of suspension. Such representation was made on 16th June, 1981 but the same was not found acceptable by the said authority. It appears that during the continuance of the suspension, Sri De appeared at Zonal Office at Patna for interview for selection to the post of MMC scale II on 23rd April, 1983 but no effect was given to the said interview because of the continuance of the alleged order of suspension and pendency of the criminal cases and the result of such interview has allegedly been kept in a sealed cover thereby blocking the avenues of promotion of Sri De until the criminal cases are concluded. Sri De has contended that the delay in completing the criminal case instituted in 1975 was not on account of fault on the part of Sri De but the Bank authorities and the police authorities are not proceeding diligently to conclude the said criminal trials which, according to Sri De, are bound to fail in the facts and circumstances of the case. Sri De has contended that he has been subjected to untold miseries, humiliation, both mentally and physically and acute financial distress due to prolonged order of suspension for about 12 years and it is almost impossible for the petitioner to withstand such physical and mental torture any further. He has contended that the aforesaid order of suspension having continued for about 12 years has resulted into a punitive action by efflux of time. Sri De has contended in the writ petition that although he made representation to the Chairman and managing Director, Punjab National Bank to review the question of continuance of the order of suspension, the same had not been considered by the Chairman-cum-Managing director and on the prayer of the writ petitioner, Sri De, the learned trial Judge passed an order on 20th September, 1984 directing the respondents to consider the case of revocation of the order of suspension in the facts and circumstances indicated by the learned trial Judge and it was only at this stage that the Deputy General Manager (P) Punjab national Bank took into consideration the case of Sri De and as aforesaid, he passed an order to the effect that revocation of the order of suspension and the posting of Sri De would not be in the interest of the Bank. From the circulars issued by the Government of India, it appears that by the Government order dated 7th September, 1965, it was decided that in case of officers under suspension, the investigation should be completed and the charge sheet should be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction in case of prosecution or served on the officer in cases of departmental proceeding within six months as a rule. If the investigation is likely to take more time, it should be considered whether the suspension order should be revoked and the officers should be permitted to resume duty. If the presence of the officers is considered detrimental to the collection of evidence or it is likely to tamper with the evidence, he may be transferred on revocation of the suspension order. By the government order dated 4th February, 1971, the earlier order dated 7th September, 1965 was modified partially and it has been held to the following effect: "in partial modification of the above order it has been decided that every effort should be made to file the charge sheet in court or serve the charge-sheet on the Government servant, as the case may be, within three months of the date of suspension, and in cases in which it may not be possible to do so, the disciplinary authority should report the matter to the next higher authority explaining the reasons for the delay. "