Regular Second Appeal No. 3286 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No. 2- C of 1987 in/and Regular Second Appeal No. 3286 of 1986 Date of decision: May 12, 2010 The Punjab National Bank ...Appellant Versus Hari Dev Sharma ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant-Bank. None for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. Hari Dev Sharma, respondent-plaintiff and the objector had filed the suit to challenge his dismissal from the service of the Bank ordered on 1.3.1982. The respondent-plaintiff was serving as an Accountant with the appellant-Bank. There were number of allegations made against the respondent-plaintiff alleging that he had received the deposit amount from the customers but had not reflected the entries in the bank record. After holding inquiry in terms of Regulation of the Bank, he was dismissed, which he challenged by filing a civil suit on number of grounds. It was alleged that no legal charge was issued to the respondent-plaintiff and it was based on suspicion. The basis on which the charges were formulated was also not disclosed, as per the allegation. Plea further is that his reply was also not considered. Regular Second Appeal No. 3286 of 1986 2 He was held guilty without there being any evidence or material on record. The respondent-plaintiff was also prosecuted for the allegation arising out of the same transaction but was acquitted by the criminal court. He would accordingly plead that the order of dismissal would amount to double jeopardy. His suit was dismissed against which he filed an appeal, which was also dismissed. However, the First Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal gave partial relief to the respondent-plaintiff in regard to his right to receive pay and allowances for the period he had remained under suspension. While passing the dismissal order, the punishing authority had deprived the respondent-plaintiff for the arrears of pay and allowances beyond the subsistence allowance, which had already been drawn by the respondent-plaintiff. He accordingly pleaded that he was not afforded an opportunity to defend his case before this the order depriving him for pay and allowances for the period of suspension was made. Though the counsel for the bank would say that the right of the respondent-plaintiff to receive pay and allowances for the period he had remained under suspension would come to an end, moment the order of dismissal was passed, yet he has not been able to show if this order could be passed by way of punishment while directing his dismissal from service. No regulation of the Bank has brought to my notice which would authorise him while passing the order of his dismissal. That being the position, the principle of natural justice would require that person, who is deprived of his right to receive pay and allowances, may be on any account, would require Regular Second Appeal No. 3286 of 1986 3 opportunity of hearing and then appropriate order is to be passed. Instead of allowing this part of the relief it would have been appropriate for the appellate Court to pass an order after affording the opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, this part of the order, which is alone under appeal filed by the Bank, cannot be sustained and is set aside. However, the Bank would issue a show cause notice to the respondent-plaintiff giving out reasons as to how he is not entitled to pay and allowances for the period he had remained under suspension. The Bank would be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. There is no merit in the cross objection filed by the respondent-plaintiff. No one has appeared to make submission in support of the cross objection. The cross objection, therefore, are rejected. The substantial question of law in the Regular Second Appeal filed by the Bank would arise in regard to the principle of natural justice whether the impugned order can be sustained due to violation of said principle. The same is decided accordingly. The Regular Second Appeal otherwise is allowed to this extent. May 12, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE