IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12703 of 2005 HARENDRA SINGH Versus BHOJPUR ROHTAS GRAMIN BANK &ORS ----------- 06. 24.07.2008 Years ago on 20.8.1986 petitioner was put under suspension. The reason for suspension of the petitioner was that a criminal case was instituted by the respondent Bank for certain charges of omission and commission including defalcation. But, after some years passed the respondent Bank decided in its wisdom to revoke the order of suspension. The order in this regard came to be issued on 8.7.1995 as would be evident from annexure-7/1. After joining of the petitioner yet another order dated 23.8.1995 was issued by the Bank which is annexure-8 to the writ application. By virtue of this order the pay of the petitioner was fixed notionally at Rs.3540/- from 8.7.1995. Pay and perks of employees of Gramin Banks have been fixed and refixed by NABARD from time to time and the same has accrued to the employees but some where down the line an order dated 3.5.2003 came to be issued by the General Manager of the respondent Bank. This order is contained in annexure-16 to the writ application. The order states that despite the NIT Award and the communication of NABARD dated 20.3.1993, based on audit objection the benefit of the notional fixation of pay will not accrue to the petitioner due to pendency of a criminal case since the matter is subjudice. Petitioner will have to wait for the outcome of the court’s order. In the present writ application the order contained in Annexure- - 2 - 16 is under challenge. Contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the objection raised by the Snap Audit Team with regard to payment of notional fixation of pay to the petitioner at the time of revocation suspension cannot be allowed to remain notional merely because a criminal case is pending before the trial court. This action of the respondents amounts to awarding punishment even before finding of guilt is recorded against him. Withholding of the benefit of the revised pay which is available to other employees of the bank is a hostile discrimination without the authority of law. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents they have justified their action stating the background and indicated that the action has been taken in terms of the audit objection or audit observation made in this regard. The question therefore arises whether the impugned order dated 3.5.2003 can be allowed to stand in the way of the petitioner claiming his salary which had been notionally fixed in terms of the revision based on the Award and recommendation of the NABARD way back in 1995. The question of payment of salary in the revised scale to the petitioner cannot be linked with any pending matter, criminal or departmental. Claim to salary by any employee is his basic right and the same can only be denied to him in a state of facts and rules. It is not open to any employer to withhold salary of its employee on any whims and fancy. It was the duty of the employer, in this case the respondent Bank, to see whether the audit objection raised is in - 3 - conformity with law or in breach of law. In the opinion of the Court, pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner before the trial court instituted way back in the year 1987 cannot be made a ground for withholding the benefit of notional pay fixation in favour of the petitioner by the respondents. It amounts to imposing a kind of punishment upon him even before a conclusion is reached in the matter. If something negative emerges against the petitioner it is open to the employer to impose punishment in accordance with the service rules governing the employees. But the action which has been taken by virtue of the order dated 3.5.2003 contained in annexure-16 cannot be sustained. For the reasons above, the order dated 3.5.2003 is quashed and the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner his pay and perks in terms of the NABARD letter dated 20.3.1993 and the decision taken by respondent contained in annexure-8 or any other revision which has come into play in the meanwhile. It is clarified that the respondents have freedom to impose punishment upon the petitioner depending upon the outcome of the criminal case or a departmental inquiry if any. The writ application is allowed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)