N K MENON Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition are that the petitioner having joined the Service of State Bank of India as a Clerk initially was promoted to the post of Officer in 1979 and became permanent Accountant in 1982 at Bharampuri, Ludhiana Branch of the Bank. After taking over the charge he noticed some procedural irregularities prevailing at the Branch and submitted a detailed report to the then Branch Manager on 27-1-1983. He was transferred to Chandigarh in the Office Manager Section Regional Officer, Punjab and was provided with lease based accommodation w. e. f. 1-6-1984 as per bank rules. He was asked to vacate the leased accommodation on or before 9-5-1985 on account of his suspension. He was being paid subsistence allowance to the tune of Rs. 1,191/- per month approximately. The authorities deducted a sum of Rs. 756/- on account of rent for the tenanted premises from the subsistence allowance for the month of March, 1986 and he was only paid a sum of Rs. 498. 50 for the afforesaid month. Prior thereto only 12% per month of the basic pay i. e. a sum of Rs. 150/- per month was being deducted and the balance amount of the rent was being paid by the bank to the landlord. In March, 1986 deduction on account of rent from the subsistance allowance was raised to the tune of Rs. 756/- and this led to the filing of the suit for a declaration that the recovery of the lease money from the subsistance allowance is penal and cannot be recovered from him, that the suspension was illegal and that the bank authorities be restrained from deducting the excess of 12/2% from the basic pay or the subsistance allowance.

(2.) WHILE defending the action, it was pleaded by the respondents that the appellant was suspended under Rule 50-A (1) (a) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) (Service) Rules and that the petitioner had no right to challenge the order of suspension. According to the defence of the bank-authorities as per Rule 50 (7) (ii) an employee under suspension could be allowed to use occupation of the official house for a period of four months only. Ad interim injunction was declined by the Courts below primarily on the ground that the rent of the accommodation has not been deducted from the subsistance allowance of the petitioner. It has been held that Bank is not obliged to make contributions of Rs. 756/- to the landlord since the appellant has not vacate the rented accommodation and, therefore, no case for the grant of injunction has been made out. It has further been found by the Courts below that if the petitioner cannot afford the retention of the tenanted accommodation, he can vacate the same.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the suit has yet to be decided and it has to be found whether the suspension order was illegal or not. It has further been argued that as long as the petitioner continues to be inservice of the Bank, the authorities are bound to make the payment of the rent to the landlord as he is only put under suspension. The precise argument of the learned counsel is that if ultimately the petitioner is reinstated and suspension order is revoked and he is asked to vacate the tenanted premises on account of the action of the respondent-authorities, he would be put to irreparable loss and injury particularly when in view of shortage of accommodation which is a well known fact, he may not get the accommodation again.