PURANDER MALLICK Vs. UCO BANK & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this case assails the second show cause notice & rejection of his representation to grant increment during the period of suspension. However, at the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Disciplinary Proceeding was completed & his appeal & revision have been dismissed & he was awarded with punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner did not challenge the findings recorded by the Enquiring; Officer or the Appellate Authority, rather confined his arguments to the denial of subsistence allowance, equal to his pay; after completion of one year from the date of his suspension. In addition, the Petitioner claims that as the Disciplinary Authority has not passed any order regarding the period of suspension, i.e. whether to treat it as duty or as such, the same should be treated as duty.

(2.) FACTS of the case are not disputed. On 17.10.1985, there was alleged shortage of cash of Rs. 60,000 in the Bazar Branch of UCO Bank, Rourkela, as a result of which, F.I.R. was lodged against the Petitioner, the Chief Cashier & another employee of the Bank, which resulted in registration of GR. Case No.1924 of 1985. Thereafter, charges were framed against the Petitioner & on 24.12.1985 he was placed under suspension. On 21.07.1989, the Petitioner was exonerated from the criminal charge in the aforesaid G.R. Case. The Petitioner was informed that subsistence allowance shall be paid to him at the rate of full salary & allowance from the date of Judgment passed by the criminal Court on 21.07.1989. In the meantime, on 26.12.1991 order of punishment was passed after finding him guilty in the Disciplinary Proceeding. The order of suspension was revoked on 31.12.1991, the Petitioner submitted his appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected. Representation to the Revisional authority was also rejected.

(3.) THE Opp. Parties have filed a counter affidavit. It is pleaded that the Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated on the selfsame charges for which the criminal trial was conducted. There is no bar for the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a domestic enquiry, even in case where a criminal proceeding was initiated. It is further submitted that since the year 1983, as per the Bi -partite settlement, the suspended employee is not eligible for grant of any increment falling due for consideration during the period of suspension & his subsistence allowance, therefore, shall undergo no change on this score. It is further claimed by the Opp. Parties that the subsistence allowance has been paid to the Petitioner in consonance to the guidelines stipulated in the circular dated 23.09.1987. It is further pleaded that the Bank did not pay full subsistence allowance after one year from the date of suspension to the Petitioner because the investigation was done by the outside agency (Police) & the criminal case is pending. The Bank released the full subsistence allowance w.e.f. 21.07.1989, that being the date of Judgment in the criminal case. It is further pleaded that not mentioning how the period of suspension shall be treated in the final order pre -supposes that the same shall be treated as such. In other words, it is pleaded that if the Disciplinary Authority had desired, otherwise, he would have clearly mentioned the same in the order of punishment. On such pleading, the Opp. Party -Bank prayed to dismiss the writ application.