THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3102 of 2003 ORDER: The husband of the petitioner, by name G. David Ajit Roy, (for short, ‘the employee’), was employed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the 1st respondent-Bank, on 15.07.1980. He was placed under suspension in the year 1983, on the ground that he has fabricated Demand Drafts, by utilizing the unused blank demand drafts of the Bank. On the basis of the complaint, submitted by the 1st respondent, he was tried in C.C.No.151 of 1988, by the Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Through its judgment, dated 01.03.1995, the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted him. Criminal appeal filed against it, is said to have dismissed. The 1st respondent also filed O.S.No.699 of 1986 against the employee, in the Court of VI Additional Judge-cum-City Small Causes Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of money, said to have been misappropriated. During the pendency of the suit, the employee, died on 29.04.1996, in an accident and his legal representatives were brought on record. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 31.10.1997. The decree therein has become final. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not released the death-cum-retirement benefits to her and other family members so far. The respondents filed counter-affidavit. It is stated that the allegation against the employee was very serious but the criminal case and the suit ended against them, on technical reasons. They contend that during the pendency of the criminal case, disciplinary proceedings were not initiated, and in the meanwhile, the employee died. Heard Smt. T.Vidya Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Madhan Mohan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. On noticing alleged acts of misappropriation on the part of the employee, the 1st respondent filed a complaint. Proceedings were initiated before the Criminal Court, under the relevant provisions of the I.P.C. It also filed a suit for recovery of the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by him. The criminal case as well as the suit ended against them. Before initiating those proceedings, the 1st respondent placed the employee under suspension. By the time, the employee died, the disciplinary proceedings were not even initiated. The result would be that the employee shall be deemed to have died while in service, and the respondents are liable to release the death- cum-retirement benefits to his family members. The plea of the respondents that an employee resorted to acts of misconduct, cannot be taken into account, for denial of such benefits. It is only when the punishment is imposed on the employee, by initiating disciplinary proceedings, either independently, or on the basis of the out come of the criminal case, that such a possibility would have existed. The period, during which an employee is placed under suspension, can be treated as not on duty, when punishment is imposed. In case no disciplinary proceedings are initiated at all, or where the charges are dropped, the entire period of suspension must be treated as on duty, and difference of wages must be paid. For the foregoing reasons the Writ Petition is allowed, and the 1st respondent is directed to release the death-cum-retirement benefits to the petitioner and other family members of late G. David Ajit Roy, and pay the difference of wages for the period during which the employee was under suspension till his death. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default, the amount payable to the petitioner and her other family members shall carry interest at 9% per annum, from 01.01.1998 i.e., the date of death of the employee, till the date of payment. The petitioner shall attend the office of the 1st respondent along with her children on the date intimated to her, for receiving the benefits. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.27.12.2010. GJ