Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1030 (PAT)

Bhagawan Singh v. Canara Bank

2000-08-22

R.M.PRASAD

body2000
Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the order of his suspension passed on January 25, 1992 (Annexure 1) in contemplation of a departmental proceeding and also by order dated November 4, 1997 (Annexure-2) issued in modification of the aforementioned order continuing him under suspension pending criminal case/disciplinary proceedings contemplated against him. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order of suspension is fit to be quashed on the sole ground that it has now prolonged for over eight years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in any view of the matter under paragraph 521 of the Shastri Award which also forms part of the Regulation of the respondent-Canara Bank, petitioner after completion of one year of his suspension is entitled for full pay and thus the respondents may be directed accordingly to pay full salary to the petitioner since after completion of one year of his suspension. 3. Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has submitted that in view of the pendency of the criminal case which has been registered by the CBI, Patna against this petitioner vide R.C. No. 10 (A)/92 dated March 11, 1992 under Secs. 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A IPC and Sec. 13 (1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, continuance of the order of suspension cannot be said to be a prolonged suspension warranting interference inasmuch as it is not because of any fault on the part of the Respondent-Bank that the criminal case is still pending on account of which the petitioner can be held to have been suffering unnecessarily. With respect to second submission, it is submitted that in a case where suspension has continued beyond one year not on account of the delay attributable to the management of the Bank, the provisions governing payment of full pay after completion of one year is not attracted. With respect to second submission, it is submitted that in a case where suspension has continued beyond one year not on account of the delay attributable to the management of the Bank, the provisions governing payment of full pay after completion of one year is not attracted. According to the learned Senior counsel, an employee is eligible for full pay and allowances after one year of suspension only if the delay in enquiry is not attributable to the workman and in a case where investigation is done by the outside agency and the said agency has come to the conclusion not to prosecute the employee, full pay and allowances are payable after six months from the date of receipt of report from the said agency. It is submitted that the petitioner is now under suspension by virtue of the order contained in Annexure-2 pending a criminal case/disciplinary proceeding contemplated against him and on investigation CBI submitted charge-sheet to prosecute the petitioner, which is still pending in the CBI, Special Court, Patna. Under such circumstances provision regarding payment of full pay is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as the outside agency proceeded to prosecute him and the criminal case is still pending. According to learned Senior counsel for the Bank, the case of the petitioner was governed by Clause (i) and Clause (ii) of the said Regulation, wherein he was eligible for only half pay and allowances after completion of three months of suspension. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court in the case of Vidya Bhushan Prasad V/s. The Canara Bank and Ors., CWJC No. 11923 of 1995, disposed of on January 16, 1997, dealing with similar situation has held the petitioner at the said case entitled to get full pay on completion of one year of his suspension. Learned counsel for the Bank on the other hand has placed reliance on another order passed by another learned single Judge in the case of Amiruddin V/s. State Bank of India and Ors., 1995 (1) All PLR 164. 5. It is true that facts of the case of Vidya Bhushan Prasad are more or less identical. In the said case also Criminal case was pending before the Special Judge, CBI in which charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken but thereafter the matter remained pending. 5. It is true that facts of the case of Vidya Bhushan Prasad are more or less identical. In the said case also Criminal case was pending before the Special Judge, CBI in which charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken but thereafter the matter remained pending. The Court noticed the fact from the order-sheet of the said criminal case that the matter had been placed at least on fourteen occasions and has been adjourned with a routine order. Under such circumstances, learned Judge held that mechanical adjournment of criminal trial leads to serious abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly directed the Special Judge to proceed with the trial and conclude the same within three months. With respect to subsistence allowance it has been held that the petitioner of the said case is entitled for payment of full salary in terms of Shastri Award and accordingly issued direction to make payment. In the case of Amiruddin V/s. State Bank of India and Ors., learned Judge after having perused the provisions of the Shastri Award and Desai Award as well as the settlement arrived at between the Bank and its employees held that after submission of the charge-sheet in the criminal case, petitioner will be entitled only to half of the salary as subsistence allowance. However, in none of the said two orders learned Judge quoted the provision contained in Shastri Award or in Desai Award nor there is any detailed consideration. Under such circumstances, this Court considered it fit and proper to hear the matter in detail with reference to the relevant provisions. The said orders are in fact, not judgment which can be said to have binding effect in absence of detailed consideration of relevant provisions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any provision that the order of suspension in the facts and circumstances aforementioned can be held to be a prolonged suspension warranting interference by this Court. It is not the fault of the Bank on account of which the CBI case instituted against the petitioner is still pending. Learned counsel for the parties, however, submitted that till now only two witnesses have been examined in the said case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the trial has proceeded at a snail speed and has prolonged for eight years still there is no chance of its conclusion in near future. Learned counsel for the parties, however, submitted that till now only two witnesses have been examined in the said case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the trial has proceeded at a snail speed and has prolonged for eight years still there is no chance of its conclusion in near future. Under such circumstances, this Court may consider to direct the special Judge to proceed with the trial and conclude it within a fixed time. Normally, this Court does not consider it proper to issue any such direction fixing time limit for conclusion of the trial, but having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been under suspension for now over eight years only on account of pendency of the trial, this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case considers it expedient to direct the Special Judge, CBI, North Bihar, Patna to proceed with the trial and conclude the same within three months from the date the copy of the order is produced before him. 7. On the question of payment of full pay after expiry of one year of suspension, this Court finds it difficult to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank. The relevant provision governing subsistence allowance, which according to the case of the respondents in para-9 of the counter-affidavit has been incorporated in Chapter IX of the Service Regulations of the Bank Service Code, reads as follows: "Where the Investigation is not entrusted to or taken up by an outside agency (i.e. Police/CBI), subsistence allowance will be payable at the following rates: (i) For the first three months 1/3 of the pay and allowances which the workmen would have got but for the suspension. (ii) Thereafter 1/2 of the pay and allowances. (iii) After one year, full pay and allowances if the enquiry is not delayed for reasons attributable to the concerned workmen or any of his representatives. Where the investigation is done by an outside agency and the said agency has come to the conclusion not to prosecute the employee, full pay and allowances will be payable after six months from the date of receipt of report of such agency, or one year after suspension, whichever is later and in the event the enquiry is not delayed for reasons attributable to the workmen or any of his representative". The very opening sentence of the said provision says that where the investigation is not entrusted to or taken up by an outside agency (i.e. Police/CBI), subsistence allowance will be payable (i) for the first three months l/3rd of the pay and allowances which the workmen would have got but for the suspension (ii) thereafter half of the pay and allowances irrespective of the fact that workman has been placed under suspension without formal initiation of a departmental enquiry. Clause (iii), however, deals with both the exigencies, where the enquiry is initiated and investigation is also being done by an outside agency. Under the said clause a workman is entitled for full pay and allowances after one year of his suspension if the enquiry is not delayed for the reasons attributable to the concerned workman or any of his representatives. But, where the investigation is also being done by an outside agency and the said agency has come to the conclusion not to prosecute the employee, full pay and allowances are payable after six months from the date of receipt of the report of such agency, or one year after suspension whichever is later. This clearly shows that the payment of full pay and allowances are to be made after one year irrespective of pendency of the criminal case otherwise the words after six months from the date of receipt of report of such agency would become redundant. For example if on investigation the outside agency concludes not to prosecute the employee within one month of his suspension then as per the said provision full pay and allowances will become payable after six months from the date of receipt of the report, but at the same time as per the said provision is payable one year after suspension, in view of the expression whichever is later Thus, this Court finds it difficult to reconcile the two on accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the Bank. 8 The said view also finds support from the reiteration made in the last sentence after the words whichever is later, according to which full pay and allowances becomes payable after one year of suspension in the event the enquiry is not delayed for reasons attributable to the workmen or any of his representatives. 8 The said view also finds support from the reiteration made in the last sentence after the words whichever is later, according to which full pay and allowances becomes payable after one year of suspension in the event the enquiry is not delayed for reasons attributable to the workmen or any of his representatives. Thus, it is evident that in a case where the outside agency submits report not to prosecute the employee the full pay and allowances are payable after six months from the date of receipt of the report, but denial of full pay and allowances cannot exceed one year after suspension. Any other interpretation would make either earlier period of six months or later period of one year mentioned in the said clause redundant. 9. It is by now well settled that the Court should read difference in (sic) provisions in a manner that no part thereof is held to be superfluous or surplus and that where the language of a Statute leads to manifest contradiction, a construction may be put upon it which emphasises the managing of the words and even the structures of the sentence. (See AIR 1955 Supreme Court 830). Thus, this Court holds that the petitioner became entitled for full pay and allowances after expiry of one year of his suspension and accordingly directs the respondents to pay full pay and allowances to the petitioner in terms of Shastri Award having regard to the fact that he has remained under suspension for more than one year. 10. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed. In the facts arid circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs.