Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sandipta Gangopadhyay vs Allahabad Bank & Ors on 21 April, 2015
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1
63 21.4.2015
gd W.P. 7288 (W) of 2015
Sandipta Gangopadhyay
Vs.
Allahabad Bank & Ors.
Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharyya
Ms. Reshmi Ghosh
Mr. Dipayan Kundu
..for the Petitioner
Mr. Partha Bhattacharyya
..for the Respondents
The petitioner now remains suspended for more than eight months merely on the ground that a criminal complaint has been lodged against the petitioner and a charge-sheet has been filed in connection therewith.
The respondent bank says that since due permission has been granted by the bank to proceed against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the bank does not wish to post the petitioner even at a distant branch from the one involving the incident. The bank says that it has no confidence in the petitioner and cannot entrust any duties to the petitioner in such circumstances.
As noticed in the previous order of March 25, 2015, this is the second petition complaining of the indefinite suspension of the petitioner. No disciplinary proceedings have been instituted against the petitioner, presumably since the charges that may be levelled against the petitioner are the subject matter of the criminal complaint.
On August 20, 2014 a complaint was lodged against the petitioner before the Mogra Police Station by a constituent of the bank who had applied for a loan 2 under the Prime Minister's Employment Generation Programme. Without going into the specifics of the complaint, it appears that the complainant was required to pay a bribe to the petitioner for the loan being sanctioned. The petitioner was arrested and subsequently enlarged on bail. The petitioner suffered the usual suspension following his arrest but the suspension was continued even after the petitioner was released on bail and attempted to join his duties. The bank insists that in terms of Rule 12 of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, the bank is entitled to suspend an officer when a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial.
The petitioner had carried WP 5762 (W) of 2015, challenging his indefinite suspension. Such petition was disposed of by directing the Chief Manager of Allahabad Bank to reconsider the petitioner's prayer for revoking the order of suspension in accordance with law. The Chief Manager was required to communicate a reasoned decision in such regard to the petitioner.
It now appears that instead of the Chief Manager deciding the matter, the appellate authority of the bank took up an appeal from the refusal by the appropriate authority to revoke the order of suspension. The appellate authority records in the impugned order of March 18, 2015 that since it was a case of bribery being investigated into by the State police and marked currency notes given by the complainant to the petitioner were recovered from him, there was no mitigating factor for revoking the order of suspension. The appellate 3 authority held that the reputation of the bank had been tarnished on account of the petitioner.
The petitioner refers to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on February 16, 2015 in Civil Appeal no.1912 of 2015 (Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India) where the court had the occasion to go into the desirability of an indefinite order of suspension. The court held that since the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code permit an accused detained for a period of 90 days to be enlarged on bail if the investigation is not completed by then, the currency of a suspension order "should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension."
An order of suspension, pending the outcome of disciplinary or criminal proceedings, works against both the employee and the employer. The employer has to maintain the employee by paying him a subsistence allowance without obtaining any services in return; the employee does not get the usual pay that he would have been entitled to by not being allowed to work when he may be willing. It is in such light that judicial pronouncements now regard a period of suspension to be limited and not continued indefinitely till the criminal trial is concluded. There are several impediments to the expeditious conclusion of a criminal trial, particularly under the said Act of 1988. It is not desirable that the State not avail of the services of an employee yet 4 continue to pay maintenance allowance for a long period while the trial goes on. Judicial notice must also be taken of the time taken in the criminal courts, though the reasons for the delay may not always be attributable to the judiciary.
Merely because the petitioner has been charged with having accepted a bribe and marked currency notes may have been recovered from the petitioner, it does not imply that the petitioner is guilty before he is pronounced as such. However self-righteous and indignated the employer may feel, it would be arbitrary and unreasonable to subject an employee to an indefinite period of suspension over a criminal trial that the employee or the employer may not be able to control. In such a situation, the employer has the right to transfer the employee to such a post where the employee may not have any opportunity to influence any witness or tamper with any evidence that may be used against him in the criminal trial; but the employer cannot say that its doors would be shut on the concerned employee merely because a criminal charge has been brought against the employee.
The indefinite period of suspension in case of the petitioner must end with immediate effect. Accordingly, the appellate order impugned dated March 18, 2015 and the decision of the bank to continue the suspension of the petitioner are set aside and the petitioner is permitted to join such duties as the bank may assign to the petitioner by the beginning of May, 2015.
It will be open to the bank to transfer the petitioner to some other branch or assign such duties that may not involve any contentious matter. The 5 petitioner should be communicated his next place of posting within a period of a week from date. The petitioner will be entitled to the regular salary and emoluments from the day the petitioner resumes his duties.
W.P. 7288 (W) of 2015 is allowed as above, but without any order as to costs. The bank and the investigating agency should ensure that the criminal trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible and the criminal court will be at liberty to deny any attempt by the petitioner to delay the criminal proceedings.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 6