Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1155 (JHR)

Deo Chandra Choudhary v. United Bank Of India

2003-09-15

R.K.MERATHIA

body2003
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. In this writ petition the main question involved is whether the petitioner was entitled to receive the subsistence allowance to be calculated after including his increments which fell due during the pendency of the departmental proceeding? 2. It appears that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was put under suspension on 22.5.1990 (Annexure-1). During suspension, he filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 2921 of 1994 (R) challenging the letter dated 30.8.1994 (Annexure-2). By this letter his subsistence allowance was reduced on the ground that as per the Bipartite Settlement the petitioner was entitled to the full pay and allowances as on the date of suspension; as the departmental enquiry continued beyond one year, but inadvertently excess amount has been paid, which should be recovered by making deductions from the subsistence allowance. The petitioners contention was that the subsistence allowance was correctly calculated and paid including the increments and the same could not have been reduced. This Court by Judgment dated 25.5.1995 remanded the matter to the respondents without expressing any opinion on the ground that the said order of reduction of subsistence allowance dated 30.8.1994 was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, after hearing the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 passed the order dated 26.7.1995 (Annexure-7), rejecting his aforesaid contention. After conclusion of the departmental proceedings the petitioner was found guilty and punished by order dated 28.8.1995 (Annexure- 8). In appeal, the punishment was modified by order dated 16.7.1996 (Annexure-C). The punishment awarded was stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect and that he shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period of his suspension, save and except what has been paid to him as and by way of subsistence allowance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order dated 26.7.1995 (Annexure-7), submitted that after one year of suspension he was entitled to the full pay and allowances, calculated on including the increments which fell due during suspension. 4. It was held in the said order dated 26.7.1995 (Annexure-7) that during the period of suspension, the petitioner was not entitled to claim increment and whatever Increment was paid by mistake, was liable to be recovered from him. 4. It was held in the said order dated 26.7.1995 (Annexure-7) that during the period of suspension, the petitioner was not entitled to claim increment and whatever Increment was paid by mistake, was liable to be recovered from him. This order was passed after considering the relevant Circulars in the light of the Shastri Award and Desai Award, particularly a Circular dated 25.9.1987 (Annexure-3). This Circular dated 25.9.1987 was challenged in the earlier writ petition and has been challenged again in this writ petition. 5. From the said Circular dated 25.9.1987 which has been relied on In the impugned order dated 26.7.1995; it appears that after full consideration, a decision was taken on 18.7.1987 by the Indian Banks Association (IBA) not to include the increment which falls due during the period of suspension for calculation of subsistence allowance. 6. There is nothing to show that the said Circular dated 25.9.1987 and the order dated 26.7.1995 based on the said circular, is wrong. The term full pay and allowances is referable to full pay and allowances received by the employee at the time of suspension. If the Increments are included in calculating the subsistence allowance, a difficult situation will be faced both by the employer and the employee; if an order of punishment is ultimately passed for stoppage of increments and/or non-payment of any pay and allowances during the period of suspension except the subsistence, allowance. Somewhat similar situation has arisen in the present case also. The increments which fell due during the period of suspension were included while calculating the subsistence allowance of the petitioner. Ultimately he was punished with stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect and also that he would not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period of suspension except what had been paid as and by way of subsistence allowance. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances, noticed above, I do not find anything wrong with the impugned order dated 26.7.1995. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.