Canara Bank v. S. Vasundara — 1996 DIGILAW 1146 (MAD)

Judgment : AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Writ Appeal No. 1757 of 1987 is filed against the final order of Mohan, J (as he then was) in Writ Petition No. 4318 of 1987, dated September 15, 1987. Writ Petition No. 4318 of 1987 was filed by Mrs. S. Vasundara against an order of suspension issued by the Bank, dated July 9, 1985, which reads as follows: "DPL MDC-CHF/2480 Proceedings of the General Manager Sub :- Enquiry against Smt. S. Vasundara (12273) Accountant. Whereas departmental proceedings are contemplated against Smt. S. Vasundara (12273), Accountant for certain acts of misconduct on her part while functioning as Accountant of Grand Central, Madurai Branch; Whereas it is considered necessary and expedient to place the said Smt. S. Vasundara, Accountant, under suspension pending enquiry; Now therefore, the said Smt. S. Vasundara is hereby suspended from service of the Bank with effect from the date of service of this proceedings until further orders; She, shall, during the suspension period be entitled to receive subsistence allowance at the rate of half the basic pay which she was receiving on the date Prior to the date of suspension and other proportionate reduced allowances except conveyance allowance, entertainment allowance, half yearly closing allowance and special allowance. However, allowances not linked to basic pay will be paid at the usual rates. During the occupation of Banks quarters 12 1/2% or 10% of the basic pay or subsistence allowance whichever is lower will be deducted from the subsistence allowance for furnished or unfurnished accommodation respectively provided by the Bank and Smt. S. Vasundara shall give a mandate for the same. Smt. S. Vasundara will he entitled to receive the payment of subsistence allowance only on her furnishing to the Bank a Certificate that she is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation." Mohan, J(as he then was) had allowed Writ Petition No.4318 of 1987 on the short ground that the suspension order stated "Whereas departmental proceedings are contemplated against Smt. S. Vasundara (12273) Accountant for such acts of misconduct on her part while functioning as Accountant of Grand Central, Madurai Branch." and no charges had been framed against the petitioner for any act of misconduct at Grand Central, Madurai. The order of suspension came to be passed by virtue of regulation 12 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 and Canara Bank Officer Employees(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, which provides : (i) an Officer employee may be placed under suspension by the competent authority : a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or; b) Where a case against him in respect of any Criminal Offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. "ground of attack in so far as the order of interim suspension of the petitioner in writ petition No.11235 of 1987 is that the charge memo which came to be issued on October 15, 1986 was served on her on November 3, 1986 relates to the acts of delinquencies, which took place while she was functioning at the Extension Counter of Sri Parasakthi College for women, Courtailam and that therefore by no stretch of imagination, the order of interim suspension 11 could refer to any misconduct on her part while functioning as Accountant of Grand central, Madurai. 2. The respondents-Bank filed a detailed counter affidavit and stated as follows : An inadvertent mistake has crept in the above narration. The place where she was working at the time she was reported to have committed acts of gross misconduct in respect whereof departmental proceedings were contemplated (subsequently taken) has been mentioned as Grand Central, Madurai Branch instead of Extension Counter at Parasakthi Womens College. In other words, the place where she was working at the time of issuing the suspension order has been typed instead of the branch where the misconduct was committed. The petitioner is fully aware that the place of working in the suspension order is only a bona fide and inadvertent mistake which cannot in anyway affect the validity of the suspension. Subsequent events namely issue of charge sheet and proceedings, justify the prior issue of the suspension order. It is submitted that the suspension order was issued on July 9, 1985, till date, Smt. Vasundara has not even made a representation to the Bank seeking clarification, if she had any doubts about the cause for the suspension. In fact, there is a provision for Appeal in the Discipline and Appeal Regulations and till date, the petitioner has not preferred any Appeal against the order Of suspension. In fact, there is a provision for Appeal in the Discipline and Appeal Regulations and till date, the petitioner has not preferred any Appeal against the order Of suspension. The petitioner is not entitled to take unfair advantage of a bona fide and trivial mistake in the suspension order which does not affect its validity.I state that the mention, by a bona fide mistake, in the suspension order, of the petitioners place of working (at the time she was reported to have committed the acts of gross misconduct) as "Grand Central, Madurai" instead of the Extension Counter, cannot affect the validity or binding nature of the order of suspension and that the petitioner has no right to file the above writ petition. "3. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner urged that the interim order of suspension was vitiated, while learned counsel for the respondents-Bank would contend that there is nothing wrong in the interim order of suspension because the mistake is a bona fide one. Though there is some infirmity in the said interim order of suspension, however, the petitioner has not been misled, it was contended that the order of suspension should be upheld. Mohan, J (as he then was) upheld the contentions of the writ petitioner and observed in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of his order as follows :" 9. I have given my careful consideration to the above arguments. I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. No doubt the petitioner had not made a grievance of the mistake that had crept in the order of interim suspension, either on receipt of it by her on November 4, 1985 or even on receipt of the charge memo on November 3, 1986. However, that will not cure the defect which I consider to be serious in nature because, the interim order of Suspension clearly discloses lack of application of mind. When the General Manager of the respondents-Bank signed the order of interim suspension, I expect him to have at least perused the order before putting pen to paper. He cannot do so mechanically as has been done in this case. When the General Manager of the respondents-Bank signed the order of interim suspension, I expect him to have at least perused the order before putting pen to paper. He cannot do so mechanically as has been done in this case. If only he had taken care to peruse the interim order of suspension, especially having regard to the serious nature of charges levelled against the petitioner or had spent at least two minutes of his time, the bank would not have been placed in the predicament in which it is placed now. 10. No doubt the counter affidavit says that the mistake is an inadvertent mistake and that the petitioner had not made even a representation seeking clarification. I do not know why the petitioner should. But again to call it a bona fide mistake is not going to improve the matter because, the Bank, at least when its attention was drawn, could have amended the interim order of suspension instead of sticking on to its version and expecting the petitioner to seek clarification. This is hardly an attitude which can be appreciated at. After all, what does the interim suspension in law mean ? It is a cessation of jural relationship of Master and Servant Before that cessation is brought about by the impugned order, all that could have been, done is to exercise a little more care or to bestow a little more attention, the lack of which has now obliged me to allow this writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 4318 of 1987 The respondents-Bank aggrieved by the order of Mohan, J (as he then was), dated September 15, 1987 filed the above Writ Appeal. 4. Mr. P. R. Raman, Learned Counsel appearing for the Bank contended that the charge framed was in respect of the alleged misconduct committed only at the Extension Counter at Parasakthi Womens College, Courtailam. While so, the learned single Judge has held that the suspension order lacks application of mind and had to be quashed. In the above Appeal, the Bank had obtained interim orders of stay in C.M.P. No. 15348 of 1987 of the learned Judges order. The Bank has contended in the above Appeal that learned Judge had failed to appreciate the fact that the error was wholly inadvertent and at any event, the Bank had acted bona fide. Further, the mistake was inconsequential to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The Bank has contended in the above Appeal that learned Judge had failed to appreciate the fact that the error was wholly inadvertent and at any event, the Bank had acted bona fide. Further, the mistake was inconsequential to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. It was also contended that the suspension order was issued after due and proper application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority and that in the said order mention of the centre as the place of working of the respondent, when she committed the alleged acts of misconduct was only inconsequential, which did not affect the validity of the suspension and that the non-mention of the original branch/place therein by sheer inadvertence did not affect its validity or did not mean that there was no application of mind. In the course of the argument, it was further urged by learned counsel for the appellants-Bank that though reference to Madurai Grand Central Branch in the suspension order was an error, it did not in any way prejudice the respondent, who was facing charges of grave misconduct, falsification of accounts etc.. The order of suspension has merely ensured the smooth conduct of the investigation and consequent enquiry and the respondents interest had not suffered nor was she subjected to any denial of opportunity on account of the mistake in the said order of suspension. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to all the points raised by Learned counsel appearing on either side. In the impugned order, the learned Judge has proceeded on an erroneous presumption that the order of suspension is a cessation of jural relationship of master and servant. In our opinion, the learned Judge has attached undue importance to the preliminary wordings of the order of suspension and has not appreciated the fact that a minor error in the wordings will not vitiate the entire order of suspension. By keeping the respondent under suspension the relationship of master and servant is not snapped. On the other hand, the duties and obligations of both stretch well into the enquiry and subsequent actions of the disciplinary authority. By keeping the respondent under suspension the relationship of master and servant is not snapped. On the other hand, the duties and obligations of both stretch well into the enquiry and subsequent actions of the disciplinary authority. Though in the suspension order the alleged acts of misconduct is stated to have been committed by the respondent at Grand Central, Madurai instead of Extension Counter, Courtalam, as a matter of fact, the investigation revealed that the respondent had committed acts of misconduct both at Extension Counter, Courtal - lam and Grand Central, Madurai during her tenure in those branches. This fact was revealed after investigations and the appellant has stated this fact in the affidavit filed in support of C.M.P. No. 15348 of 1987 for stay of the impugned order. The respondent employee did not, in our opinion deserve any indulgence from this Court, considering the fact that she was an accused in several cases instituted by the CBI and had misappropriated at least Rs. 8.95 lakhs. 6. The learned Judge is not right in holding that the suspension is bad and has failed to apply the well known principles of law applicable to cases of this nature, where mistakes of trivial nature without affecting the competency cannot affect the validity of the order. That apart, the learned Judge has also omitted to take due note of the fact that the respondent did not at any time prior to her filing of the writ petition, nearly one year and nine months after the order of suspension, question the correctness and validity of the suspension order. Therefore, we are of the view that the interim order of suspension has got to be upheld and the Writ Appeal has to succeed. 7. In the result, Writ Appeal No. 1757 of 1987 is allowed. In view of the Judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1757 of 1987, Writ Petition No. 4318 of 1987 is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Writ petition No. 11235 of 1987 Per AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. 8. Writ Petition No. 11235 of 1987 is filed against the second order of suspension issued by the Bank, dated September 24, 1987, amending the earlier order of interim suspension, dated July 9, 1985. However, there will be no order as to costs. Writ petition No. 11235 of 1987 Per AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. 8. Writ Petition No. 11235 of 1987 is filed against the second order of suspension issued by the Bank, dated September 24, 1987, amending the earlier order of interim suspension, dated July 9, 1985. The amended order of suspension, dated September 24, 1987 reads as follows : "Canara Bank, Industrial Relations Sections, Personnel wing, Head Office, No. 112, JC Road, Bangalore 560 002. Canara Bank (A Government of India undertaking) Ref : IRS DP : MDC CHF 4811 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL MANAGER Sub : Enquiry against Smt. S. Vasundara (11273) Accountant. Ref :- 1. Suspension Proceedings DPL : MDC CHF 2480, dated July 9, 1985; 2. Chargesheet No. DPL : MDC-CHF : 3748, dated October 15, 1986. Whereas Smt. S. Vasundara was suspended from the services of the Bank vide proceedings of the General Manager DPL MDC CHF : 2480, dated July 9, 1985; Whereas it was stated in the abovementioned proceedings that departmental proceedings are contemplated against Smt. Vasundara for certain acts of misconduct on her part while functioning as Accountant of Grand Central, Madurai Branch instead of mentioning Parasakthi Womens College Extension counter, Courtailam attached to Shenkottah branch; Whereas Smt. Vasundara has also committed certain misconduct while working as Accountant at Grand Central, Madurai branch prior to the date of suspension as mentioned in the proceedings DPL : MDC CHF 2480, dated July 9, 1985;It is hereby ordered that the suspension order DPL MDC CHF 2480, dated July 9, 1985 is also operative pending enquiry into the charges already framed against her vide chargesheet NO. DPL MDC CHF 3748 dated October 15, 1986 in connection with certain alleged acts of misconduct committed by her while she was working at Parasakthi Womens College Extension Counter, Courtallam attached to our Shenkottah branch : Whereas in respect of misconduct alleged to have been committed by her at Grand Central, Madurai Branch, prosecution proceedings have commenced in the court of law and departmental action is contemplated; Now therefore, it is hereby ordered that the suspension proceedings DPL MDC CHF 2480, dated July 9, 1985 is operative in respect of misconducts committed by her while working as Accountant at Parasakthi Womens College Extension Counter, Courtallam, attached to Shenkottah branch and also at Grand Central, Madurai branch. This proceedings shall be read together with proceedings DPL MDC CHF 2480, dated July 9, 1985. Head Office, Bangalore-2, dated : September 24, 1987. sd/- General Manager To Smt. S. Vasundara (11273), Accountant, Canara Bank, Madurai." * 9. Ms. D. Vijayalakhmi Somasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that the Bank had no right to amend the earlier suspension proceedings and in any event, it had to he done within a reasonable time and since the amendment was sought after the lapse of about three years, it is improper and illegal and that therefore it has to be quashed as violative of principles of natural justice. It is further stated that since the earlier proceedings have already been quashed by this Court in W.P. No. 4318 of 1987, dated September 15, 1987, the third respondent has no right to amend the proceedings of an already quashed order. The impugned order of suspension is also bad since it was passed by a different authority viz. The third respondent instead of the second respondent. The impugned order of suspension is therefore improper and invalid. 10. Mr. P. R. Raman, learned counsel appearing for the bank contended that the earlier order of suspension, dated July 9, 1985 had been quashed by Mohan, J. (as he then was) only on September 15, 1987 in W.P. No. 4318 of 1987, that the second order of suspension has been issued on September 24, 1987 and that therefore the contention of the petitioners counsel that the second order of suspension had not been issued within a reasonable time, has no legs to stand. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that as the earlier suspension order, dated July 9, 1985 had been quashed, any order, amending the same is null and void, that it can only be done after the order passed in W.P. No. 4318 of 1987 is set aside and that therefore the impugned order is violative of the order passed in W.P. No. 4318 of 1987 as such, it must be set aside. It is further contended that as a consequence, before issuing the impugned order, the Bank ought to have reinstated the petitioner with full benefits. 11. Mr. It is further contended that as a consequence, before issuing the impugned order, the Bank ought to have reinstated the petitioner with full benefits. 11. Mr. P. R. Raman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank in reply to the above argument contended that as against the order of Mohan, J (as he then was), in W.P. No. 4318 of 1987, dated September 15, 1987, the Bank had filed a Writ Appeal No. 1757 of 1987, which was admitted on September 24, 1987 and interim order of stay was passed in C.M.P. No. 15348 of 1987 and by virtue of the same, the petitioner continues to be under suspension and that therefore the Bank has not committed any of the order of the court by issuing the second order of suspension. It was also contended by learned counsel for the Bank that though the charge sheet dated October 15, 1986 issued by the Bank related to the alleged misconduct at the Extension Counter, Courtailam and the earlier order of suspension dated July 9, 1985 indicated that the alleged misconduct was committed by the petitioner, while she was working at Grand Central, Madurai Branch, the petitioner had committed misconduct at both the said branches apart from a few other branches. Therefore, without prejudice to the contentions in W.A. No. 1757 of 1987, the second suspension order had been issued. 12. There is every force in the said contention of Mr. P. R. Raman, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank. The amended order of suspension, dated September 24, 1987 was issued out of abundant caution to avoid any serious consequences that may have followed consequent to the quashing of the earlier order of suspension, considering the enormity of the fraud and misappropriation alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. At no cost, can the Banks interest be prejudiced and the petitioner cannot be allowed to seek reinstatement, as a result of the suspension order being set aside, as it would lead to great loss of morale among the other employees and also lower the perception by the public of the Banks functioning. It is seen from the records that on October 15, 1986, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet in respect of certain acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by her, while she was working as Accountant at the Parasakthi Womens College Extension Counter at Courtailam. It is seen from the records that on October 15, 1986, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet in respect of certain acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by her, while she was working as Accountant at the Parasakthi Womens College Extension Counter at Courtailam. During the entire period, the petitioner was under suspension. Mr. B. S. Shankaranarayanan, Manager was initially appointed as the Inquiring Authority in the above matter vide a proceeding, dated December 18, 1986. The Inquiring Authority has fixed the preliminary hearing on March 27, 1987. When the petitioner informed the Inquiring Authority that she had to attend to the Criminal Court on that day, the Inquiring Authority adjourned the enquiry to March 28, 1987. The notice was also duly served on her. But, she did not attend the enquiry. So, the inquiring Authority has fixed the regular hearing on May 11, 1987. But the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 4385 of 1987 to quash the preliminary enquiry proceedings in respect of the charge sheet dated October 16, 1986 and obtained the interim stay in W.M.P. No. 6476 of 1987. After a lapse of twenty months the petitioner had also filed another writ petition No. 4318 of 1987, challenging the order of suspension issued to her. The said Writ petition No. 4318 of 1987 came up for final hearing and it was allowed by Mohan, J (as he then was) on September 15, 1987 on the sole ground that the disciplinary proceedings were related to the petitioners tenure at Courtailam, whereas the suspension order was on the specific fact that she had committed misconduct at Grand Central Branch. Madurai. Writ petition No. 4385 of 1987 was dismissed and the petitioner was ordered to face the enquiry pursuant to the charge sheet dated October 15, 1986. As against the order of Mohan, J (as he then was), quashing the suspension order, dated July 9, 1985 in 4 W.P. No. 4318 of 1987. Writ Appeal No.1757 of 1987 was filed by the respondents bank, which was admitted by a Division Bench of this Court on September 24, 1987 and in C.M.P. No. 15348 of 1987, the order of Mohan, J (as he then was) was also stayed. Thus, the petitioner continued to be under suspension pursuant to the suspension order, dated July 9, 1985. .13. Thus, the petitioner continued to be under suspension pursuant to the suspension order, dated July 9, 1985. .13. The present Writ Petition (W.P. No. 11235 of 1987) has been filed by the petitioner to quash the suspension proceedings dated September 24, 1987 issued by the third respondent and for seeking a direction, directing the respondents to reinstate her into service as Accountant in the Bank with all promotions, benefits and other facilities available to her. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner has attacked the impugned order of suspension dated September 24, 1987 mainly on two grounds, which we have already adverted to in the earlier paragraphs. We accept the explanation offered by the Bank that the impugned proceedings dated September 24, 1987 have been issued by the Bank stating that the suspension order, dated, July 9, 1985 is operative, pending charge sheet, dated October 15, 1986. The petitioner was charged with the acts of very grave misconduct in the form of misappropriation of approximately over Rs. 9 lakhs, while functioning in the Extension Counter at Courtallam and also to the tune of Several thousands of rupees, while functioning as Accountant in the Grand Central, Madurai Branch of the respondent Bank. The conduct of the petitioner would go to show that @o somehow or other she was trying to avoid facing the enquiry. She was also resorting to continuous litigation through several writ proceedings with a view to somehow or other stall the departmental proceedings by side tracking the issue by challenging the suspension orders/ charge sheet with the idea of protracting the enquiry proceedings for ever. Such an attitude of the employee of a Bank should not at all be encouraged and such an attitude of the employee of a Bank to stall the legally instituted departmental enquiry proceedings should never be allowed to go on. The petitioner, in our opinion, was not in any manner prejudiced or harmed by the second amended order of suspension, dated September 24, 1987 which is merely a continuation of the earlier proceedings, dated July 9, 1985, since she continued to remain under suspension since July 9. 1985, viz., the date of the first order of suspension. The allegation of the petitioner that she was victimised by the subsequent action taken by the Bank is denied by the respondents Bank. 1985, viz., the date of the first order of suspension. The allegation of the petitioner that she was victimised by the subsequent action taken by the Bank is denied by the respondents Bank. It is true that is denied by the respondents Bank. It is true that suspension orders cause mental agony to the persons concerned. But in the instant case, the accusations are grave enough should they be alternately proved, it would result in serious consequences. It is only a bona fide exercise of power and therefore, there is no vindictiveness or arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in exercising their power under the Rules, viz., Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976. The petitioner is prevented from exercising the power and discharging the duties of her office for the time being, as a result of the order of suspension. Therefore, in our opinion, the power has been exercised to suspend the petitioner rightly and carefully by the respondent. In the decision reported in D. Uthira Kumaran v The Government of Tamil Nadu (1990-I-LLJ-205) a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Mohan, 3 (as he then was) and Padmini Jesudurai, J has elaborately considered the situations in which a member of service can be placed under interim suspension. The Division Bench further held that the suspension pending enquiry is certainly not punitive in character. In 25 such a case, it means the relationship of master and servant remains in abeyance for a temporary phase. It is an action in order to maintain purity of service when a employee is awaiting an enquiry in regard to his suspected misconduct. The Division Bench also held that suspension pending or in contemplation of disciplinary enquiry does not amount to temporary removal from service. The power of suspension not by way of punitive action, but to keep an officer out of the sphere of action, is a substantive power and it is not dependent on the enquiry on the charges and the result flowing from the enquiry. .14. Though a contrary view was taken by Mohan, J (as he then was) in W.P. NO. The power of suspension not by way of punitive action, but to keep an officer out of the sphere of action, is a substantive power and it is not dependent on the enquiry on the charges and the result flowing from the enquiry. .14. Though a contrary view was taken by Mohan, J (as he then was) in W.P. NO. 4318 of 1987, dated September 15, 1987 sitting singly, holding that the interim suspension in law would mean that it is a cessation of jural relationship of master and servant, the very same learned Judge, while sitting in a Division Bench laid down the principles, which in our opinion is correct (in D. Uthirakumarans case) (Supra) 15. In the result, writ Petition No. 11235 of 1987 fails and the same shall therefore stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.