Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Kumar vs Chairman, State Bank Of India Corporate ... on 11 November, 2019
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14643 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Respondent :- Chairman, State Bank Of India Corporate Centre, Mumbai And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Om Prakash Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Chaturvedi Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Supplementary counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Bank.
The petitioner herein seeks for quashing of the order dated 14.12.2018 with the specific assertion in the writ petition itself that the disciplinary enquiry has not been initiated and no charge-sheet has been served on the petitioner till date. It has further been brought on record that the departmental appeal against the suspension order has been dismissed on 29.06.2019.
To the categorical stand of the petitioner with regard to the initiation of the departmental enquiry, nothing had been stated in the counter affidavit filed on 20.10.2019. The averments made in the counter affidavit have been found vague. This Court vide order dated 24.10.2019 directed the respondent no.3, namely, the General Manager (Network III) (Disciplinary Authority) Local Head Office State Bank of India, Delhi to file his personal affidavit to explain the reason for not proceeding with the disciplinary enquiry for a period of more than one year.
In the supplementary counter affidavit filed today, there is a reference of the preliminary enquiry report which is the basis of the suspension order. With regard to the disciplinary enquiry and the appointment of enquiry officer, it is contended in paragraph '6' and '7' of the supplementary affidavit that explanation/reply filed by the petitioner to the suspension order has been sent to the Coporate Centre along with the documents to seek instructions as to whether the present case would be classified under minor or major penalty category. The answering respondent i.e. the disciplinary authority is waiting for reply/instructions from the Head Office/Corporate Centre, Mumbai and once the case is classified, the charge-sheet would, accordingly, be served on the petitioner.
Noteworthy is the fact that in the entire affidavit there is no disclosure of the provision under which the disciplinary authority requires such approval or instructions of the Head Office to classify a case for inflicting minor or major penalty.
The dates of communications sent by the disciplinary authority seeking instructions/approval of the Head Office have not been disclosed nor are any such communication is part of the record.
The explanation offered by the disciplinary authority for the delay of more than one year in initiation of the disciplinary authority is, thus, unsatisfactory. Further, in the opinion of the Court, it is prerogative of the disciplinary authority and it is competent to take a decision in the matter of departmental enquiry against an employee of the Bank. The disciplinary authority instead of discharging its duties is trying to pass on the burden on his superiors.
For the aforesaid, it is more than evident that the act of the respondents in keeping the petitioner under suspension for an indefinite period without taking necessary steps for initiation of the disciplinary enquiry, is nothing but harassment of the petitioner.
It is well settled that the suspension is not a punishment. At the same time, it is settled principle of law that an employee cannot be kept under suspension for a long time or indefinite period without holding departmental enquiry.
Reference may be made to the judgement of this Court in Ayodhya Rai & others Vs. State of U.P. & others 2006 (3) ESC 1755.
For the above facts culled out from the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be continued under suspension keeping him in the state of dilemma for approximately one year. While setting aside the suspension order dated 14.12.2018, holding that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with immediate effect, it is kept open for the respondent to initiate departmental enquiry as per the procedure prescribed in the Service Rules.
The subsistence allowance has already been received by the petitioner. The question of payment of full salary for the period of suspension would be subject to the result of the departmental enquiry or the punishment order, if any, passed in accordance with law.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 11.11.2019 P Kesari