Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1042 (PAT)

Mahendra Jha v. Union Of India

2000-08-25

R.M.PRASAD

body2000
Judgment 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent Bank to pay the remaining 3/4th of the salary for the months of November and December, 1987 and January, 1988 and half of the salary for the period February, 1988 up to June, 1990 besides bonus, washing allowance, arrear of increment and arrear of 5th Pay Revision etc. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was suspended on 30th October, 1987 on account of institution of a criminal case against him. The said order of suspension was, however, revoked on 30th July, 1990. Finally in the said criminal case the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 17.6.1995 (Annexure 1) as the prosecution failed to prove the case against him due to no evidence and the court discharged him from the liability of the bail bond. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representations (Annexure 5 series) before the authority concerned for payment of the aforementioned dues, but the respondent authority did not pass any order which compelled (sic). 3. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation or initiation of a departmental proceeding which has either been pending or final order has been passed imposing punishment. 4. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner today, in which it is stated that to the knowledge of the petitioner, no departmental proceeding is pending against him. 5. Thus, the question involved in the present case is as to whether after his acquittal, the petitioner is entitled for full salary and other benefits during the period of suspension. 6. 5. Thus, the question involved in the present case is as to whether after his acquittal, the petitioner is entitled for full salary and other benefits during the period of suspension. 6. Learned counsel for the Bank has referred to sub-rule (i) (ii) & (iii) of rule (b) contained in Annexure R/2, which read as follows : "(b) WHERE THE INVESTIGATION IS ENTRUSTED TO OR TAKEN UP BY THE OUTSIDE AGENCY : (i) For the first six months 1/3 of the pay and allowances which the workman would have got but for the suspension; (ii) Thereafter 1/2 of the pay and allowances for the succeeding months until the enquiry is over; (iii) 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 allowance will be payable after 6 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 workman or any of his representative." 7. This Court fails to appreciate as to how the said provision is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case where the suspension order was passed on account of filing of the criminal case which ended in acquittal of the petitioner. The said provision relates to as to what amount shall be payable as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension where the investigation is entrusted to or taken up by the outside agency. It does not provide as to what amount shall be payable for the period of suspension after the acquittal of a person in the case. Moreover, this Court in the case of Shree Bhagwan Singh V/s. The Canara Bank (C.W.J.C. No. 10785 of 1999, disposed of on 22.8.2000) [reported in 2001(1) PLJR 160 ] has held that after the expiry of one year of the order of suspension, an employee becomes entitled for full pay and allowances in terms of Shastri Award. 8. However as the instant case is not covered by the aforementioned provisions and that the criminal case ended in acquittal of the petitioner, this Court does not find any justification to deprive him the benefit of full pay and allowances during the period when he was kept under suspension on account of lodging of the criminal case. 8. However as the instant case is not covered by the aforementioned provisions and that the criminal case ended in acquittal of the petitioner, this Court does not find any justification to deprive him the benefit of full pay and allowances during the period when he was kept under suspension on account of lodging of the criminal case. 9. Accordingly, this Court directs respondents no. 2 to 5 to pay the petitioner the aforementioned remaining dues besides other benefits such as bonus, washing allowances etc. for the period he was kept under suspension on account of lodging of the criminal case within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. The writ application is, thus, allowed, but without costs.