IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.904 of 2007 1. THE CHIEF G.M.,STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, J.C. ROAD, ANTAGHAT, PATNA 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCALHEAD OFFICE, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, J.C. ROAD, ANTAGHAT, PATNA 4. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (IV) ZONAL OFFICE, J.C. ROAD, ANTAGHAT PATNA, …………………RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS Versus UMESH S/O SRI RAM DHYAN SHARMA, R/O HORILGANJ, P.S. & DISTRICT- JEHANABAD, PRESENTLY POSTED AT STATE BANK OF INDIA A.D.B. BRANCH, DISTRIDT- JEHANABAD………..WRIT PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ******* For the Appellants :- Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Binodanand Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent :- Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate *************** 8 06/01/2009 Heard the parties. By the judgment and order under appeal dated 10.8.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16007 of 2004 the writ court has allowed the writ petition only in part by interfering with the order of the departmental authorities to the effect that period of suspension will not be treated as on duty and the writ petitioner would not be entitled to get the salary and allowances for the said period. The interference is on a finding that this issue was not decided by proper application of mind to the relevant facts and relevant part of Sastri Award/Desai Award. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that - 2 - since the interference is on account of a finding that there was no proper application of mind by the appellate authority, the said issue should have been remitted back to the appellate authority for fresh decision after proper application of mind. Learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner) has replied that the very provision in clause 19.12 (b) of the award which is quoted in the judgment and order under appeal shows that if some punishment other than the dismissal is inflicted, the management in its discretion may treat the whole or a part of the period of suspension as on duty with the right to a corresponding portion of the wages, allowances etc. According to the learned counsel, the whole or a part cannot mean total denial covering the entire period. In view of the rival submissions, this court is not required to decide any issue because it is found that in the facts of the case the matter relating to period of suspension and salary and allowances for the said period should be remitted to the appellate authority in view of finding given by the writ court that its earlier decision was without proper application of mind. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. As observed earlier the issue of deciding whether the period of suspension as a whole or in part be treated as on duty and whether petitioner should be paid corresponding portion of wages and allowances or not is remitted back to - 3 - the appellate authority. It is expected that the appellate authority shall apply his mind to the relevant facts and take a decision in accordance with law at early date, preferably within three months from today. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin