Madhya Pradesh High Court
R.S.Tiwari vs Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Anr on 29 September, 2010
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No : 6188 of 2000
Smt. Madhu Tiwari & Others
- V/s -
Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank
And another.
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Rajesh Maindiratta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ajay Mishra, Senior Advocate, with Smt. Madhu
Shukla for the respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.
ORDER
29/09/2010 Challenging the orders-dated 26.6.99 and 16.9.2000 - Annexures P/6 and P/15 respectively, this writ petition has been filed. This petition was originally filed in the year 2000 by Late R.S. Tiwari, who was an employee of the respondents' Bank. Now, after his death, during the pendency of this writ petition, his wife and children - who are the Legal Heirs, have been brought on record.
2- Late R.S. Tiwari was employed in the Respondents' Bank, which is a Kshetriya Gramin Bank constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1976'). The Sponsoring Bank of the Kshetriya Gramin Bank is the Central Bank of India, in accordance to the powers conferred on the Bank by virtue of section 30 of the Act of 1976. The Board of Directors of the respondents' Bank after due consultation with Central Bank of India have formulated the Staff Service Regulations, applicable to the 2 respondents' Bank, and is known as Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad, Staff Service Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations of 1980'). Service conditions of the employees are governed by these Regulations. Late R.S. Tiwari was posted as Branch Manager at Bamhori Branch and due to his involvement in a criminal case vide order-dated 1.5.1991, he was placed under suspension. A First Information Report was lodged in the matter and Challan was filed by the Police before the competent court on 2.6.1992. Charges were framed under sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, and finally it is common ground that vide order passed on 5.3.1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj in the criminal revision, petitioner was discharged of all the charges vide Annexure P/2. After the petitioner was discharged, he was suspended and a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and a departmental enquiry commenced. Finally the matter came to this Court at the instance of the petitioner, in W.P.No.1052/1998 (R.S. Tiwari Vs. Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad and another), and this Court vide order-dated 20.4.1999 - Annexure P/3 quashed the entire departmental enquiry and the charge-sheet issued to Shri R.S. Tiwari and directed for his reinstatement after revocation of the suspension. Respondents were also directed to take a decision with regard to regularization of the period of suspension, keeping in view his discharge in the criminal case and the order quashing the charge-sheet. When nothing was done, petitioner again approached this Court and this Court in W.P.No.5112/1999 vide order-dated 13.7.2000 - Annexure P/13, directed the petitioner to file an appeal in accordance to the provisions of Regulations of 1980. Accordingly, petitioner filed an appeal vide Regulation 30 and the same having been dismissed vide Annexure P/15, dated 16.9.2010, petitioner is again before this Court. 3- Shri Rajesh Maindiratta, learned counsel for the petitioner, invites my attention to the provisions of Regulation 30(4) and the proviso thereto and argues that once the charge-sheet and the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner is quashed and when no penalty as contemplated under sub-clause (1) of Regulation 30 is 3 imposed, petitioner is entitled to full salary and allowance for the period he was under suspension. It is stated that in denying full salary and allowance to the deceased employee and now to his legal heirs, respondents have committed error. That apart, it is stated by Shri Rajesh Maindiratta that after death of the original petitioner Shri R.S. Tiwari - respondents have not paid the gratuity, leave encashment, to which the late employee was entitled to. Accordingly contending that petitioners are now entitled to regularization of the suspension period by payment of full salary in view of the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Regulation 30, gratuity and leave encashment, petitioners pray for the same. 4- Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, submits that Regulation 30 referred to by the petitioner is only with regard to exoneration in the departmental enquiry, after quashing of the charge- sheet. It is stated that as petitioner is not exonerated of the charges by the duly constituted enquiry and as the enquiry itself was not conducted and the order passed in the writ petition was sub judice in a LPA and after death of the employee, the LPA itself was disposed of, it is argued that now no relief can be granted to the petitioner. It is stated that there is no discharge of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry after a finding recorded in his favour and, therefore, no relief can be granted to him. Accordingly, contending that there is no provision for granting full salary for the period petitioner remained under suspension due to pendency of the criminal case, respondents contend that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records it is clear that the only question warranting consideration in this writ petition now is as to whether the deceased employee was entitled to full pay and allowances during the period of suspension, in view of his discharge in the criminal case and quashment of the charge-sheet and departmental enquiry by this Court vide order passed in W.P.No.1052/1998 - Annexure P/3.
6- Even though during the course of hearing of this writ petition, counsel have only referred to Regulation 30(4) and the 4 provision thereof, but on a perusal of the Regulations it is seen that there are two Regulations with regard to suspension. One is with regard to suspension pending departmental enquiry i.e... Regulation 30(4) and the proviso thereof; and, the other is with regard to suspension on arrest and involvement in criminal charge i.e... Regulation 29. For the sake of convenience, the provisions of said Regulation are reproduced hereinunder:
"29. (1) An officer or employee who is arrested for debt or on a criminal charge or is detained in pursuance or any process of law, may, if so directed by the competent authority, be treated as being or having been under suspension from the date of his arrest, or, as the case may be, his detention, upto such date or during such period, as the competent authority may direct. In respect of the period in regard to which he is so treated, he shall be paid subsistence allowance as specified in sub regulation (4) of regulation 30.
(2) Any payment made to an officer under sub-regulation (1) shall be subject to adjustment of his pay and allowances which shall be made according to the circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision as to whether such period is to be accounted for as a period of duty or leave:
Provided that full pay and allowances shall be admissible only if the officer or employee -
(a) is treated as on duty during such period, and
(b) is acquitted of all charges or satisfies the competent authority, in the case of his release from detention or his detention being set aside by a competent court, that he had not been guilty of improper conduct resulting in his detention.
(Emphasis supplied)
30. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 5 (4) An officer, or employee may be placed under suspension by the officer empowered to pass the final order under this regulation. During such suspension, the officer or employee shall receive subsistence allowance equal to one-third of basic pay the officer or employee was receiving on the date prior to the date of suspension, plus dearness allowance and other allowances excluding conveyance allowance, entertainment allowance and calculated on the reduced pay for the first three months of suspension. For the subsequent period after three months he shall be entitled to draw ½ of the basic pay plus the dearness allowance and other allowances specified above calculated on the reduced pay.
Provided that if no penalty under clause (b),
(c), (d), (e) or (f) of sub-regulation (1) is imposed the officer or employee shall be refunded the difference between the subsistence allowance and the emoluments which he would have received but for such suspension, for the period he was under
suspension and that, if a penalty is imposed on him under all or any of the said clauses, no order shall be passed which shall have the effect of compelling him to refund such subsistence allowance. The period during which an officer or employee is under suspension shall, if he is not dismissed from the service, be treated as period spent on duty, leave or period not spent on duty as the officer who passes the final order may direct.
......... (Emphasis supplied) " 7- It is clear from the records that initially petitioner was
involved in criminal case and he was suspended only due to his 6 involvement in the criminal case and in the criminal case, there is no conviction of the petitioner. He is honourably discharged in the criminal case by virtue of the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, District Raisen vide order-dated 5.3.1999 - Annexure P/2. Similarly, the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner is also quashed by this Court in W.P.No.1052/98.
8- That being so, the question is as to whether petitioner is entitled to full salary and allowances for the period of suspension? 9- Sub-clause 2(1) and proviso (a) thereof, to Regulation 29 - as indicated hereinabove, and the underlined portion clearly indicates that full pay and allowances shall be admissible to the officer or employee after he is acquitted of all the charges. In the present case, petitioner is acquitted of all the charges and due to the aforesaid statutory provision as contained in Regulation 29, he is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension, when he was suspended due to involvement in a criminal case. Similarly, proviso to sub-clause (4) of Regulation 30 also contemplates that if no penalty as provided under proviso (b) to (f) of sub-clause (1) is imposed, the employee is entitled to refund of the difference between the subsistence allowance and the emoluments, which he would have received but for the suspension.
10- In the present case, in view of the aforesaid two Clauses and in the light of the petitioner's exoneration in the departmental enquiry, may be due to quashing of the charge-sheet by this Court and similarly taking note of the discharge in the criminal case, there is no reason for denying full pay and allowances to the petitioner. Action of the respondents in denying the same to the petitioner is unsustainable and has to be quashed, as the Regulations are very clear and the proviso to the Regulations, as reproduced hereinabove, clearly contemplates that in case of exoneration in the departmental enquiry without imposition of any penalty and in case of acquittal/discharge in the criminal case, an employee is entitled to full pay and allowances. In the present case, the provisions of the statutory regulations as indicated hereinabove and the 7 acquittal of the petitioner by way of discharge in the criminal case and his exoneration in the departmental enquiry, due to quashment of the charge-sheet, having resulted in non-imposition of any penalty as contemplated under Regulation 29(1), petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period he remained under suspension and in denying the same, respondents have committed error. 11- In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Impugned orders-dated 26.6.99 and 16.9.2000 - Annexures P/6 and P/15 respectively, are quashed and respondents are directed to pay to the petitioners - legal heirs of deceased employee Shri R.S. Tiwari, full pay and allowances for the period the employee remained under suspension. That apart, respondents are directed to settle the claim of the deceased employee with regard to payment of gratuity and leave encashment in accordance to the Rules. The entire amount in pursuance to this order be paid to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The amounts shall be paid by the respondents' alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this petition i.e.....from 11.10.2000, till its payment.
12- Petition stands allowed and disposed of.
( RAJENDRA MENON )
JUDGE
Aks/-