CIVIL REVIEW No.152 OF 2001 ---- Against the judgment and order dated 05.03.2001 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A.No.498 of 2000. ----- ZORAWAR SINGH SAWHNEY SON OF LATE DILIP SINGH RETIRED MANAGER,CANARA BANK,NOW RESIDING AT C-F,26, SHIVA ENCLAVE,PASCHIM VIHAR,NEW DELHI-110063---PETITIONER Versus 1.CANARA BANK(GOVT.OF INDIA UNDERTAKING)THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR,HEAD OFFICE AT 112,J.C.ROAD BANGALORE-560002 2.RESERVE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GOVERNOR, CENTRAL OFFICE FORT,BOMBAY- 400001--- OPPOSITE PARTY ----- FOR THE PETITIONER :DR.K.N.SINGH,SR.ADVOCATE DR.KAMALDEO SHARMA,ADVOCATE FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:MR.CHITRANJAN SINHA,SR.ADVOCATE MR.SIDDHARTHA PRASAD,ADVOCATE ----- P R E S E N T ---- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA ------ Shiva Kirti Singh & S.K.Sharma,JJ. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Canara Bank. This review application has been preferred seeking review of judgment and order dated 05.03.2001 passed by a Division Bench of this Court whereby LPA No. 498 of 2000 was dismissed without interfering with the judgment and order dated 29th February, 2000 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner bearing CWJC No. 3787 of 1994 was dismissed without granting any relief to the petitioner against the order of punishment whereby the petitioner had been 2 2 reverted from scale III to scale II in the Canara Bank. At the time of admission of this review application, by order dated 07.04.2004, a Division Bench of this Court admitting the review application has limited it in the following terms: “This application is admitted for hearing on the limited question as to whether the petitioner would be entitled for salary for the period of his suspension between 1985 and 1987.” Since the Disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner has ended in order of punishment with which no interference could be made by the writ court or by the Division Bench, as per well established law, the petitioner cannot be held entitled for full- fledged salary for the period of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly accepted that proposition of law but he has attempted to highlight the fact that between 1985 and a particular date in 1987 3 3 when a fresh order of suspension was passed with retrospective effect, the petitioner had been ousted from service because of not being included in the list of employees who were retained in service on account of merger of his original master Bank with the Canara Bank. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in respect of one Sudarshan Kumar Dhall. Copies of the judgments passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court as well the Supreme Court in the case of aforesaid Sudarshan Kumar Dhall have been produced. On perusal we find that Sri Dhall chose to challenge the decision of the Bank treating him to be under continued suspension by filing a writ petition promptly and the High Court granted him relief by holding that because of having remained out of service, the suspension of the said Officer had merged with his removal and he could not be treated to be under suspension after being taken back in service pursuant to judgment of Supreme Court in the case of K.I. Shephard and Ors.Vrs.Union of India & Others reported in AIR 1988 S.C.686. Against the judgment and order of the Madhya 4 4 Pradesh High Court, the Bank preferred Civil Appeal No. 4885 of 1992 which was disposed on March 29, 1995. In that judgment, the apex court has noted that learned Senior Advocate for the Bank vehemently contended that in the facts of this case, the doctrine of merger, which the High Court has applied, is not attracted. The Court further observed that there may be some plausibility in the argument of the learned counsel but it is not necessary to go into that question because on facts the court felt satisfied that by setting aside the order of suspension, the High Court had done substantial justice and on that account the Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the same. In the present case, annexure-4 to the writ petition is the subsequent order of suspension dated 15.10.1987 holding that the petitioner shall be deemed to be under suspension from 24.08.1985. This order was not challenged till the departmental proceeding was alive and only when punishment was challenged in 1994, this order which had lost its force was also challenged. 5 5 The writ court has not noticed the submission, if any, against the said suspension order. Similar is the position with regard to the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal. The limited issue left alive for consideration in this review application is the issue of salary for the period of suspension between 1985 and 1987. On behalf of the respondent-Bank, it has been submitted that the issue is entitlement for salary for the period of suspension between particular period and not regarding validity or otherwise of suspension. It was further submitted on behalf of the Bank that the suspension order passed in 1987 was accepted by the petitioner throughout the period of proceeding and that issue is no longer open to be considered in this review application. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to consider the old and stale issue of validity of suspension order passed in 1987. Once the suspension is not an issue, we are of the firm view that the petitioner is not entitled for any salary for 6 6 the period between 1985 and 1987 because disciplinary proceeding has ended in order of punishment and it cannot be held that the suspension was unjustified. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in this review application. It is accordingly dismissed. ( Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) Patna High Court,Patna The 30th October,2009 Tahir/-(NAFR). ( Shyam Kishore sharma,J.)