Kerala High Court
Purushothaman Potti V.N. vs State Bank Of Travancore And Ors. on 27 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: [2000(85)FLR23], (2000)IILLJ635KER
Author: Arijit Pasayat
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, K.S. Radhakrishnan
JUDGMENT Arijit Pasayat, C.J.
1. In this appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1959 (in short, the Act), judgment of learned single Judge declining to interfere with the order of suspension passed by State Bank of Travancore (hereinafter referred to as 'employer') is under challenge.
2. Appellant, while working as Cashier/Clerk of Karunagappally Branch of employer, was placed under suspension pending enquiry. Earlier, he was served with a memo (Ext. P 13 to original petition), in which various allegations had been levelled against him. Action of employer has been characterised as mala fide, arbitrary, without any foundation and is assailed in this writ appeal after an unsuccessful attempt before, learned single Judge.
3. With reference to various documents, more particularly the allegations earlier made (vide. Exts. P2, P5, P7, P9, P11 and P13), it is submitted that for trifling matters, serious view has been taken unnecessarily and even a matter which was lying dormant for quite sometime has been raked up to proceed against appellant. It is submitted that though it is the prerogative of employer to pass an order of suspension, in case departmental proceeding is pending or contemplated, yet there should be some material on which order of suspension is to be based, and cannot be the ipse dixit of employer. Imputations should be of such nature as to warrant suspension of an employee which consequentially entails loss of pay. It is stated that in present case, the basis is totally lacking. Learned Counsel appearing for employer submitted that allegations are not of trifling nature as tried to be made out. As each of the documents referred to above, including Ext. P. 13, would go to show, there were several allegations of irregular and illegal functioning. Apart from charge of maintaining three savings bank accounts jointly with his wife and crediting unusually heavy sums in the accounts, appellant was also charged with the allegation of engaging in giving Ayurvedic treatment, and as such patients and their relatives were regularly visiting the branch premises. As a result, appellant was frequently leaving the counter to attend them causing unnecessary delay in transactions at cash counter. Some customers even threatened to stop transacting with the bank. For considering whether an order of suspension is justified, it is not open to make an in-depth analysis of factual position to give a verdict whether ultimately the allegations will stand or not.
4. In passing an order of suspension, authority is required to take into consideration the gravity of misconduct sought to be enquired into or investigated and the nature of offence placed before the authority. There should be an application of mind. It should not be an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It is to be noted that such an order is an administrative order and not a quasi-judicial order. Order of suspension does not put an end to service. Real effect of the order of suspension is that though the civil servant continues to be a member of service, he is not permitted to work and is paid only subsistence allowance, which is less than the salary. Suspension merely suspends the claim to salary. During suspension, mere is suspension allowance (See Khem Chand v. Union of India), AIR 1963 ; SC 687 : (1963-I-LLJ-665). There would be no question of salary accruing or accruing due so long as order of suspension stands (See State of M.P. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,) AIR 1977 SC 1466 : (1977-II-LLJ-369). There is no doubt that an order of suspension, unless departmental enquiry is concluded within a reasonable time, affects an employee injuriously. The very expression 'subsistence allowance' has an undeniable penal significance. Dictionary meaning of the word 'subsist' as given in shORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY VOL. II is : 'to remain above as on food; to continue to exist'. 'Subsistence' means, means of supporting life, especially a minimum livelihood. But, at the same time, there should not be unusual delay in considering the question whether departmental proceeding is to be terminated.
5. In view of the position of law, we do not consider it a fit case for interference. Writ appeal fails and is, dismissed.