(1.) The petitioner, who had been Clerk-cum-Cashier in State Bank of India, was proceeded departmentally for some alleged misconduct after levelling a charge-sheet on 28.4.1978. The enquiry constituted yielded to finding of guilt and the services of the petitioner had been terminated by the Bank by its order dated 17.3.1981. This order had been challenged before the Labour Court, Chandigarh as ID No. 44 of 1987, which set aside vide order dated 23.11.1989 and remitted back the matter for fresh enquiry. As regards the claim for full back-wages, the Court had observed that it will abide by the final decision. The award which was issued on 23.11.1989 directed reinstatement and also observed that if the department decided not to hold further enquiry, the petitioner shall also be entitled to full back-wages of retiral benefits. The petitioner had been again served with a show cause notice after remand for enquiry, imputing him with insubordination by its notice dated 15.11.1990, which was a verbatim reproduction of earlier charges levelled against the petitioner on 28.4.1978. The enquiry reaffirmed that the petitioner had been guilty of some riotous behaviour on 9.1.1978 and the other charges levelled against the petitioner had been found as not established. After the report was filed, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice for a proposed punishment of censure and the order, by which the petitioner shall not be paid back-wages for the period when the petitioner remained under suspension. The petitioner objected to the proposal to denying him full back-wages during the suspension period but a final decision was passed denying to the petitioner full back-wages during the period of suspension and awarding the punishment of censure.
(2.) The writ petition challenges final order only to the extent that it denies salary during the suspension period. At the time of argument, the learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that at the time when the order was passed, it was treated as though he had been re-employed and all his past service had been denied to him.
(3.) The order only denies to him the full back-wages for the period that he remained suspended till his re-instatement except subsistence allowance already drawn by him and does not deny him the continuity of service. The apprehension by the petitioner in that regard is therefore unwarranted. However, with regard to his claim that when the respondent decided to inflict a minor punishment of censure, it would not competent for it also to deny to him the full back-wages during the period of suspension, it should be examined as to how the relevant conduct rules make provision for the same. It is contended that disciplinary action and procedure therefore, are covered under the Sastry Award with modifications to Desai Award in the Bipartite Settlement dated 31.10.1979, as stood modified on 17.9.1984 and 10.4.1989. Chapter XIX of the Bipartite Settlement issue, relied by the petitioner provides through Paragraphs 19.1 to 19.16, the various punishments that could be awarded for the various types of misconducts. The mis-conduct that was proved in the enquiry was that he was guilty of riotous behaviour, which is a gross mis-conduct enumerated in Para 19.5 Clause (c) as falling within expressions of "drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the bank." Para 19.6 outlines the punishment that could be awarded to a person who is found guilty of gross mis-conduct. It states out 4 types of punishments, namely, a) be dismissed without notice; or b) be warned or censured, or have an adverse remark entered against him; or c) be fined; or d) have his increments stopped; or e) have his misconduct condoned and be merely discharged.