CWP No.10087 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10087 of 1993 Date of Decision:- February 10, 2010 SATISH KUMAR CHABRA ...PETITIONER Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.N.K.Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner None for the respondent. ***** K.KANNAN, J. 1. The petitioner, who had been Clerk-cum-Cashier in State Bank of India, was proceeded departmentally for some alleged misconduct after levelling a charge-sheet on 28.4.1978. The enquiry constituted yielded to finding of guilt and the services of the petitioner had been terminated by the Bank by its order dated 17.3.1981. This order had been challenged before the Labour Court, Chandigarh as ID No.44 of 1987, which set aside vide order dated 23.11.1989 and remitted back the matter for fresh enquiry. As regards the claim for full back-wages, the Court had observed that it will abide by the final decision. The award which was issued on 23.11.1989 directed reinstatement and also observed that if the department decided not to hold further enquiry, the petitioner shall also be entitled to full back- wages of retiral benefits. The petitioner had been again served with a show cause notice after remand for enquiry, imputing him with insubordination by its notice dated 15.11.1990, which was a verbatim reproduction of earlier charges levelled against the petitioner on 28.4.1978. The enquiry re- affirmed that the petitioner had been guilty of some riotous behaviour on CWP No.10087 of 1993 -2- 9.1.1978 and the other charges levelled against the petitioner had been found as not established. After the report was filed, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice for a proposed punishment of censure and the order, by which the petitioner shall not be paid back-wages for the period when the petitioner remained under suspension. The petitioner objected to the proposal to denying him full back-wages during the suspension period but a final decision was passed denying to the petitioner full back-wages during the period of suspension and awarding the punishment of censure. 2. The writ petition challenges final order only to the extent that it denies salary during the suspension period. At the time of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that at the time when the order was passed, it was treated as though he had been re-employed and all his past service had been denied to him. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows:- "In terms of paragraph 521(5) (b) of the Sastry Award read with paragrah 18.28 of Desai Award, paragraph 1.1 of the Agreement dated the 31st March, 1967 entered into between the Bank and State Bank of India Staff Federaton and Bipartite Settlements dated the 31st October, 1979, 17th September, 1984 and 10th April, 1989. Further he will not be paid back wages for the period he remained under suspension till his re- instatement in the bank, except subsistence allowance already drawn by him. The above orders, I hereby confirm." 3. The order only denies to him the full back-wages for the period that he remained suspended till his re-instatement except subsistence allowance already drawn by him and does not deny him the continuity of service. The apprehension by the petitioner in that regard is therefore CWP No.10087 of 1993 -3- unwarranted. However, with regard to his claim that when the respondent decided to inflict a minor punishment of censure, it would not competent for it also to deny to him the full back-wages during the period of suspension, it should be examined as to how the relevant conduct rules make provision for the same. It is contended that disciplinary action and procedure therefore, are covered under the Sastry Award with modifications to Desai Award in the Bipartite Settlement dated 31.10.1979, as stood modified on 17.9.1984 and 10.4.1989. Chapter XIX of the Bipartite Settlement issue, relied by the petitioner provides through Paragraphs 19.1 to 19.16, the various punishments that could be awarded for the various types of mis- conducts. The mis-conduct that was proved in the enquiry was that he was guilty of riotous behaviour, which is a gross mis-conduct enumerated in Para 19.5 Clause (c) as falling within expressions of “drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the bank." Para 19.6 outlines the punishment that could be awarded to a person who is found guilty of gross mis-conduct. It states out 4 types of punishments, namely, a) be dismissed without notice; or b) be warned or censured, or have an adverse remark entered against him; or c) be fined; or d) have his increments stopped; or e) have his misconduct condoned and be merely discharged. 4. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, if the petitioner had been warned or censured that was itself a mode of punishment and it cannot be done contemporaneously with other punishment of disallowing to him full back-wages during the suspension period. Para 19.9 states that the person found guilty of mis-conduct whether gross or minor, shall not be given more than one punishment in respect of only one charge. When the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the Bank and I have not been shown with any other provision than what the learned counsel for the petitioner relied CWP No.10087 of 1993 -4- upon to contend that along side of the punishment of censure, there could not have been also a punishment to deny to the petitioner full back-wages during the suspension period. Unless there is a specific rule enabling upon punishing authority to withdraw the benefit of full back-wages during the period of suspension, when ultimately the punishment that was imposed was merely warning and censure, there is no escape from the conclusion that the impugned order withdrawing to the petitioner the full back-wages except the subsistence allowance already withdrawn, could not be sustained. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on decision of this Hon’ble Court in Y .P.Sehgal Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1992(2) SCT Page 179 when dealing with the case of Civil Servant, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court had held that when a decision had been made awarding a minor punishment of censure, the denial of salary for the suspension period was neither permissible in law nor fair. Although, I am not dealing with Civil Services, still if there are no specific rules providing for a dual punishment of censure and also withdrawal of back-wages, there is no scope for the respondent to inflict such a denial on the petitioner. 5. The order insofar as it denies, the petitioner such a right to back- wages during the period of suspension, is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to full back-wages and for the payment shall be made within 6 weeks from the date of the receipt of the order with interest @ 9% from the respective dates when they fell due till the date of payment. The writ petition is allowed with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-. February 10, 2010 (K.KANNAN) Vt JUDGE