2019 (8) TMI 1876 - HC - Indian Laws

Entitlement for regular salary emoluments from the day the petitioner resumes his duty - Due suspension of an employee even on the allegation of bribery can be prolonged without any departmental proceeding and such suspended employee being involved in economic crime with moral turpitude cannot be transferred to any other branch even with lesser responsibility or not - entitlement to get an order of reinstatement having regard to his enlargement of bail - HELD THAT - The Bank in fact, has been depriving him from his right to live and other civil liberties. Such right to live is guaranteed under Article 21 and in effect a fundamental right. This right to live includes right to fair and speedy trial as has already been discussed by the Hon ble Apex Court in Hossainara Khatoon Vs. Home Secretary State of Bihar 1979 (2) TMI 194 - SUPREME COURT where Court even directed release of under trial prisoners where no charge-sheet has been framed. The Court also held that States financial constraints should not stand in the way to avoid this constitutional obligation. Direction was also issued for setting up new Courts, providing more staffs and equipment and appointment of additional judges. The concept of fair trial has been envisaged under article 21 which entails familiar triangulation of this interest of the accused, the victim. A fair trial is aimed at ascertaining the truth to all concerned. In a case where the appellant is accused in criminal breach of trust by taking money from someone else who has lodged a complaint against him that the accused compelled the complainant to give money to favour with an order of granting loan is a serious allegation against a bank employee and such bank employee when is faced with the criminal trial, it is expected that the criminal trial should be proceeded with without delay because until and unless such trial is over neither the allegation of the complainant could be proved nor the accused would able to prove that the allegation levelled against him are false and baseless which right pertains to his right to live guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. There is no law today to create a bar for departmental proceeding against the employee concerned on the ground that a criminal proceeding is pending against him and only after acquittal from the criminal trial he may be reinstated, does not justify prolonged suspension. Therefore, the authority has not acted bona fide in complying with the procedures prescribed under their own regulation. When the regulation becomes a complete Code the authority ought to have moved independent of the criminal prosecution and should have investigated departmentally to find out the wrong with the said employee. Having not done so the excuse shown by it that papers are not available with it to initiate departmental proceeding cannot be supported. Interference made by the impugned order against the prolonged suspension does not warrant interference in this appeal. When departmental proceeding is not contemplated at all, this cannot be the only object to place the employee under suspension and for him to be satisfied with a limited payment of his salary. This prolonged suspension is opposed to the due process of law in our constitution. Because it cannot be the public policy to abridge a person s right ordinarily to continue with the job for which he has been engaged. If he is alleged to have committed any wrong or guilt the same itself cannot be construed a punishment. Any allegation labelled against an employee is to be enquired into by the procedure established by law or prescribed under the rules and regulations. It can be opined that criminal charges or assertion of substantial civil liability, and criminal trial is required. The employment of the employee is subject to certain limitation prescribed by the regulations. The curtailment of the employees rights from his right to enjoy benefits pertaining to service cannot be unlimited. If by invoking a particular provision the employee concerned is placed under suspension, the other provisions in the same regulation will automatically gets revived to be followed promptly to put an end to the proceeding and such proceeding is definitely the departmental proceeding which the authority has failed to initiate, although, he has been placed under suspension under regulation. The authority s decision to prolong the suspension without initiation of the departmental proceeding is opposed to the due process of law emerged from the Constitution. The petitioner is entitled to get all benefit pursuant to the order impugned. Reference disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of indefinite suspension without departmental proceedings.
2. Entitlement of the petitioner to reinstatement following bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Indefinite Suspension Without Departmental Proceedings:
The appeal challenges the judgment dated 21st April 2015 by the learned Single Judge, which held that the indefinite suspension of the petitioner was illegal. The suspension was initially imposed following the petitioner’s arrest under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and was treated as deemed suspension under Regulation 12(2)(a) of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees’ (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The Single Judge directed the bank to allow the petitioner to resume duties and set aside the appellate order dated 18th March 2015, which had continued the suspension.

The bank argued that the suspension was justified due to the serious nature of the allegations involving bribery and that the Hon’ble Single Judge erred in relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291. The bank contended that the factual differences between Ajay Kumar and the present case rendered the former inapplicable. However, the court found that the principle from Ajay Kumar, which limits the period of suspension in the absence of a charge-sheet, was rightly applied by the Single Judge. The court also noted that the bank failed to initiate departmental proceedings independently, despite having access to relevant documents, indicating a lack of bona fide action.

2. Entitlement of the Petitioner to Reinstatement Following Bail:
The petitioner was granted bail on 6th September 2014, and subsequently filed a writ petition challenging the continuation of his suspension. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing the bank to reconsider the suspension and permit the petitioner to resume duties. The bank’s appellate authority had rejected the petitioner’s plea for revocation of suspension, citing the serious nature of the allegations and the pending criminal case.

The court observed that the prolonged suspension without initiating departmental proceedings violated the petitioner’s right to a fair trial and due process under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that suspension should not be used as a punitive measure without timely and fair inquiry. The court held that the bank’s failure to conduct a departmental inquiry, despite the availability of documents, was unjustified and that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement and regular salary from the date of resumption of duty.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the Single Judge’s order, concluding that the indefinite suspension without departmental proceedings was illegal and violated due process. The petitioner was entitled to reinstatement and regular salary, and the bank’s appeal was dismissed.