CWP No.12630 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.12630 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12.10.2010 **** Gulshan Iqbal Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab & Sind Bank and Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. BB Bagga, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. IP Singh, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 15.06.2005 and 02.04.2008 (Annexure P11 and P22, respectively). He also seeks a direction for payment of full salary for the period he remained under suspension; the refund of the arrears of pay to the tune of `6,22,395.45/- which have been deducted from his salary/retiral dues. (2). Shorn of the details, it may be mentioned here that while working as a Branch Manager, the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 19.02.1998 vide order dated 20.02.1998 (Annexure P1) due to his involvement in a criminal CWP No.12630 of 2008.doc - 2 – case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 04.12.1999 (Annexure P2). The petitioner was though acquitted in the criminal case by the Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, Patiala vide judgement dated 11.05.2002 but he was held partly guilty in the disciplinary proceedings which led to the imposition of punishment of reduction to lower stage by two stages in the time scale for a period of two years on him vide order dated 17.05.2001 (Annexure P4). The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal but that too was dismissed vide order dated 12.11.2001 (Annexure R1). (3). The service conditions of the petitioner are governed under the Punjab & Sind Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981 (in short, ‘the 1981 Regulations’). Regulation 15 thereof deals with the “Pay, Allowances and treatment of service on termination of suspension” of the employees and it reads as follows:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx CWP No.12630 of 2008.doc - 3 – “15. Pay, Allowances and treatment of service on termination of suspension: (1) Where the competent authority holds that the officer employee has been fully exonerated or that the suspension was unjustifiable, the officer employee concerned shall be granted the full pay to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended, together with any allowance of which he was in receipt immediately prior to his suspension, or may have sanctioned subsequently and made applicable to all officer employees. (2) In all cases other than those referred to in sub- regulation (1), the officer employee shall be granted such proportion of pay and allowance as the competent authority may direct: Provided that the payment of allowances under this sub-regulation shall be subject to all other conditions to which such allowances are admissible: Provided further that the pay and allowances granted under this sub-regulation shall not be less than the subsistence and other allowances admissible under Regulation 14. (3) (a) In a case falling under sub-regulation (1), the period of absence from duty shall, for all purposes, be treated as a period spent on duty: (b) In a case falling under sub- regulation (2) the period of absence from duty shall not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the competent authority specifically directs, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it shall be so treated for any specific purpose.” (4). Since the petitioner was not exonerated of the charges his case did not fall under Clause (1) of Regulation 15 ibid. (5). As regard the conscious decision to be taken by the competent authority under Clause (2), the petitioner asserts that such a decision was in fact taken and full salary for the suspension period was paid to him but the respondents have CWP No.12630 of 2008.doc - 4 – questioned the ‘competence’ of the officer who passed that order. Resultantly, the respondents have recovered/deducted the amount of `6,22,395.45/- without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. (6). The petitioner has meanwhile retired. He alleges that all the retiral dues have also not been paid to him. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be paid full salary for the period during which he remained under suspension…..? (7). As has been noticed earlier, Regulation 15(1) of the 1981 Regulations entitled an employee to seek full salary in the event of his exoneration on merits. In other cases, a conscious decision is required to be taken by the Competent Authority. (8). From the pleadings and the documents on record, there appears to be no decision taken by the Competent Authority/Disciplinary Authority to grant anything more than the Subsistence Allowance to be paid to the petitioner for the period of suspension. (9). Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the petitioner’s claim for payment of full CWP No.12630 of 2008.doc - 5 – salary under Regulation 15(2) of the 1981 Regulations and pass a speaking order after giving due opportunity of hearing to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, notwithstanding the decision to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority, it is directed that the retiral dues of the petitioner be released within a period of two months. (10). The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all those pleas including that the competent authority had decided to grant him full salary for the suspension period and all such pleas shall be specifically dealt with by the Authority while deciding the petitioner’s claim. (11). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 12.10.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE