Supreme Court of India
Punjab National Bank vs D.M. Amarnath on 25 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: [2000(86)FLR640], (2000)IILLJ256SC, (2000)10SCC162, AIR 2002 ANDHRA PRADESH 2, 2000 (10) SCC 162, AIRONLINE 1999 SC 195, (2000) 2 LABLJ 256, (2000) 86 FACLR 640, 2000 SCC (L&S) 420, (2001) 1 LACC 522, (2001) 3 ANDHLD 268, (2001) 3 ANDH LT 25, 2005 (9) SCC 278, 2005 SCC (L&S) 543
Author: M. Jagannadha Rao
Bench: M.Jagannadha Rao, A.P. Misra
ORDER M. Jagannadha Rao, J.
1. Heard counsel on both sides.
2. Leave granted.
3. The respondent was an employee in the appellant Bank. On the basis of certain alleged misconduct on the part of the respondent, he was placed under suspension by order dated April 19, 1996, by the competent authority in terms of Regulation 12.1 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. The said order of suspension was challenged. The High Court took the view that the order of suspension did not mention whether any disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or were pending against the respondent or any criminal case was under investigation, inquiry or trial and hence the order was not maintainable. The suspension was quashed. The Bank has come up in appeal.
4. In our opinion, the law does not require that the suspension order must on its face disclose that any disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or were pending or that any criminal offence was under investigation, inquiry or trial. It would be sufficient if the competent authority recorded in its proceedings that the conditions mentioned in Regulation 12.1 were in existence.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant Bank has produced before us relevant file of the Department. It shows that the above conditions are satisfied, disciplinary proceedings were contemplated, and in fact a criminal case itself is pending.
6. For the abovesaid reasons, the order of suspension was justified when it was passed. The High Court was wrong in relying upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Channamallapa Kallappa Roogi v. S.M. Megur, Administrative Officer, Distt. School Board 1969 2 Mys LJ 540 which is reproduced below:
In order of suspension which does not state that it was a prelude to the institution of any disciplinary proceedings amounts to perpetual suspension and a punishment, and is illegal. Only in the event of the authority proposing to commence disciplinary proceedings, there could be an order of suspension.
7. If it was intended to lay down that the order of suspension must state that disciplinary proceedings are proposed or are pending and otherwise, the order would be bad, we are unable to agree with such a view.
8. The order of the High Court is set aside. The suspension order is restored. It should not, however, be understood that we have said anything on merits of the allegations which are pending whether in the disciplinary inquiry or in the criminal Court.
9. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.