Judgment ( 1. ) IN this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5; Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the "fci"), of making deduction of the employers contribution from the provident fund of the petitioner for the period of his suspension from 7-7-1984 to 11-2-1997, an amount of Rs. 88,304/- was deducted on the ground that the period has been treated to be not spent on duty for all the purpose. ( 2. ) PETITIONER was appointed as Godown Clerk, redesignated as Assistant Grade-III on 5-1-1967, his services were taken over by the FCI. On 13-7-1973, petitioner was promoted as Assistant Grade-II. He was suspended on 7-7-1984. Petitioner was prosecuted in a criminal case under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. As the suspension of the petitioner continued for long, petitioner filed three writ petitions; one for revocation of the suspension and another for payment of the proper amount of subsistence allowance and in third writ petition which was for releasing the annual increments during the period of suspension. An order (RJ-1) was passed on 9-10-1998 by this Court deciding all the three writ petitions. As the suspension was revoked on 11-2-1997, the writ petition with respect to suspension was dismissed as infructuous and with respect to the payment of subsistence allowance and increments for the suspension period, the writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to make the payment of subsistence allowance in the revised salary. Yet another Writ Petition No. 4209/2002 was filed by the petitioner again aggrieved by an order (P-7 ). ( 3. ) PETITIONER was convicted in the criminal case and was dismissed from service on 10-8-2000 the petitioner was deprived of the revised pay-scale w. e. f. 1-1-1997 which action of the respondents was successfully assailed in the Writ Petition No. 4209/2003, decided by brother K. K. Lahoti, J. , on 31-3-2003, it was directed that the petitioners case has to be considered for revision of his pay and allowances with effect from 1-1-1997 till the dismissal of the petitioner from service. Calculation was directed to be made within three months. An L. P. A. No. 254/2003 was preferred against the order which was dismissed on 27-6-2003 by a Division Bench of this Court. ( 4. Calculation was directed to be made within three months. An L. P. A. No. 254/2003 was preferred against the order which was dismissed on 27-6-2003 by a Division Bench of this Court. ( 4. ) PETITIONER claimed the amount of provident fund for the period of suspension from 7-7-1984 to 11-2-1997. A notice was served. It appears that on the basis of communication (P-7), dated 1-5-2001 of the FCI, a reply (P-2) to the notice was sent on 31-7-2002 and the disciplinary authority has regularized the period of suspension as "not spent on duty" for all the purposes and Shri Bhatia was dismissed from the services of the Corporation. Hence, as per the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, under the EPF Scheme 1952, and the contribution is payable by the employer on the salary/wage earned by an employee while on duty. As per the dismissal order, the competent authority has decided the period of suspension before dismissal of Shri Bhatia as "not spent on duty". Hence, the employers contribution deposited by FCI with the FCI-CPF Trust for the suspension period was calculated alongwith interest at Rs. 88,304/- and recovered from the members CPF account. The amount has been paid back to the Corporation by the CPF Trust since the employers contribution is not payable for the period declared as not on duty. ( 5. ) PETITIONER assails the action of deduction of an amount of Rs. 88,304/- on account of employers contribution to the provident fund on the ground that the action is illegal and arbitrary. There is no power with the respondents to make such a deduction. Earlier, there was a provision in the Regulation 27 of the Food Corporation of India Contributory Provident Fund Regulations, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the "regulations"), the employers contribution could have been deducted in the case of dismissal from the service. However, the said provision was deleted by an amendment dated 17-6-1993. Thus, the action of deduction of contribution is impermissible. No opportunity of hearing has been afforded. Such an amount of compulsory contribution could not have been deducted in accordance with law. There is no rationale behind the action and the employer and employee relationship is not determined during the period of suspension. ( 6. ) A return has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 5. No opportunity of hearing has been afforded. Such an amount of compulsory contribution could not have been deducted in accordance with law. There is no rationale behind the action and the employer and employee relationship is not determined during the period of suspension. ( 6. ) A return has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 5. It is contended in the return that the alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act is available. Petitioner is having the remedy before the authority under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as the suspension of the petitioner has been treated as not spent on duty for all the purposes and he was dismissed, the petitioner is not entitled for his share as well as the contribution of his employer as claimed by him. The action is proper. Petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge, CBI, Jabalpur and sentenced to three years RI with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 20,000/ -. Consequently, he was dismissed from service. As an interim measure Rs. 70,000/- was released from the employees share as per the sanction order dated 21-11 -2000. Amendment of the CPF regulations refer to the employers contribution. Employers contribution deposited by the employer has been paid to the petitioner except for the period he was under suspension. Details of the payment made has been shown and that of the recovery. Amount of Rs. 88,304/- includes Rs. 13,895/- of the employees contribution and the employers contribution of Rs. 74,409/ -. ( 7. ) A return has also been filed by the respondent No. 6; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that the FCI is an establishment which is having its own scheme and it is custodian of the amount deposited towards contributory provident fund as it has been exempted under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as well as the Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner vis-a-vis to respondent No. 6; the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. ( 8. ) SHRI Girish Kekre, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is illegal and is contrary to the provisions of Regulation No. 27 of the Regulations of 1967 of the FCI. Amendment in the year 1993 has been ignored and overlooked. ( 8. ) SHRI Girish Kekre, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is illegal and is contrary to the provisions of Regulation No. 27 of the Regulations of 1967 of the FCI. Amendment in the year 1993 has been ignored and overlooked. Thus, the FCI was not competent to make the deduction of the employees and employers contribution towards the provident fund for the period of suspension. He has further submitted that the relationship of the employer and employee does not come to an end during the period of suspension and there is no authority under the Regulations of 1967 to make such a deduction. Principles of natural justice were not followed while making the recovery of an amount of Rs. 88,304/ -. ( 9. ) SHRI R. K. Gupta, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Rajnish Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has submitted that in accordance with the Regulation 14 deduction could be made for a period of preceding three years from the date of dismissal. He has supported the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 of making deductions. ( 10. ) SHRI S. C. Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri J. K. Pillai, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 has submitted that even during the period of suspension the employer is bound to deposit its contribution so also the employees contribution has also to be deposited and in the event of dismissal the amount is payable in accordance with law to an employee concerned subject to the regulations. He has further submitted that as the FCI is having its own scheme and is the custodian of the provident fund, respondent No. 6 is not answerable. ( 11. ) THE main question for consideration is whether during the period of suspension from 7-7-1984 to 11-2-1997 it was permissible to have deducted the amount of provident fund, employers contribution as well as the employees contribution, in my opinion, it was not permissible to make deduction of amount deposited during the period of suspension. It is not in dispute that such an amount has to be deposited necessarily in the account of provident fund in accordance with law. It is not in dispute that such an amount has to be deposited necessarily in the account of provident fund in accordance with law. Relationship of employer and employees subsists during suspension and in the event of dismissal an employee is ordinarily entitled to amount of provident fund. However, same may be subject to the provisions of the regulations. ( 12. ) IN the instant case, Regulation 27 of the Regulation of 1967 deals with deductions and it was initially provided that subject to conditions that no deduction may be made which reduces the credit by more than the amount of any contribution by the Corporation with interest thereon, before the amount standing to the credit of a member in the Fund is paid out of the Fund. The Managing Director/manager (Estt.) and Zonal Manager, as the case may be, may direct the deductions therefrom of (a) any amount, if a member has been dismissed from the service of the Corporation, (b) any amount, if a member resigns his employment, under the Corporation within 5 years of the commencement thereof. This regulation has been amended which has been placed on record by the petitioner w. e. f. 17-6-1993. The provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of the regulation which dealt with the power of the Corporation to make deduction of any amount from the provident fund in the event of dismissal and in case of resignation have been deleted. Unamended regulation is quoted below:- "27. Deductions.-- (1) Subject to the condition that no deduction may be made which reduces the credit by more than the amount of any contribution by the Corporation with interest thereon, before the amount standing to the credit of a member in the Fund is paid out of the Fund. The Managing Director/personnel Manager/commercial Manager/manager (Estt.) and Zonal Manager, as the case may be, may direct the deductions therefrom of- (a) any amount, if a member has been dismissed from the service of the Corporation; (b) any amount, if a member resigns his employment under the Corporation within 5 years of the commencement thereof. The Managing Director/personnel Manager/commercial Manager/manager (Estt.) and Zonal Manager, as the case may be, may direct the deductions therefrom of- (a) any amount, if a member has been dismissed from the service of the Corporation; (b) any amount, if a member resigns his employment under the Corporation within 5 years of the commencement thereof. Provided that the employers contribution in cases of voluntary retirement of resignation of any member from the service of the Corporation is payable at the following graduated scale:- Length of service Corporations share of contribution Less than three years 25% Between three and four years 50% Between four and five years 75% Provided, however, that in cases of death, the employers contribution would be paid in full. ided, however, that in cases of death, the employers contribution would be paid in full. (c) any amount due under a liability incurred by the member to the Corporation. (2) All amounts deducted under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-regulation (1) shall lapse to the Fund. (3) All amounts deducted under Clause (c) of sub-regulation (1) shall be paid into the credit of the Corporation. Note: The Managing Director will exercise this power in respect of the members of the Fund of the rank of Personnel Manager, Commercial Manager, Financial Adviser, or equivalent rank. The Personnel Manager/commercial Manager will exercise this power in respect of the members of the Fund of the rank of Manager. The Manager (Estt.) will exercise this power in respect of the members of the Fund of the rank of Joint Manager and below. The Zonal Manager will exercise this power in respect of the departmental labour. " The amended regulation w. e. f. 17-6-1993 reads thus :- "27. Deductions.-- (1) Subject to the condition that no deduction may be made which reduces the credit by more than the amount of any contribution by the Corporation with interest thereon, before the amount standing to the credit of a member in the Fund is paid out of the Fund. The Managing Director/executive Director (Personnel) Manager (Personnel)/estab-Hshment and Zonal Manager, as the case may be, may direct the deductions therefrom of- (a) Deleted (b) Deleted (2) Deleted (3) All amounts deducted under Sub-clause (c) shall be paid into the credit of the Corporation. The Managing Director/executive Director (Personnel) Manager (Personnel)/estab-Hshment and Zonal Manager, as the case may be, may direct the deductions therefrom of- (a) Deleted (b) Deleted (2) Deleted (3) All amounts deducted under Sub-clause (c) shall be paid into the credit of the Corporation. (4) The competent authority as mentioned in sub-regulation (1) above may permit a member to withdraw the full amount standing to his/her credit in the fund on ceasing to be an employee of the Corporation provided that he/she has not been employed in any organization/establishment to which the EPF Act applies for a continuous period of not less than two months immediately preceding the date on which he/she makes an application for withdrawal. The requirement of two months waiting period shall not however apply in cases of formal members resigning from the services of the Corporation for the purpose of getting marred. Note: The Managing Director will exercise this power in respect of the members of the Fund of the rank of Executive Director or equivalent rank. The Executive Director (Pers.) will exercise this power in respect of the members of the Fund of the rank of Manager. The Manager (Personnel Establishment) will exercise this power in respect of the members of the Fund of the rank of Joint Manager and below. The Zonal Manager will exercise this power in respect of the departmental labour. " Thus, it is clear that once the provisions of Regulation 27 has undergone amendment it was not permissible to have made the deduction under the Regulation 27 in the event of dismissal even if the contribution made by the employer/corporation with interest thereon. ( 13. ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has relied upon the Regulation 14 of the Regulations of 1967. Regulation 14 reads thus:- "14. (i) The forfeiture of Corporations contribution in cases of dismissal from the service of the Corporation will be restricted to a maximum of the Corporations contribution (including interest thereon) for the current year, i. e. , the year of dismissal, and that of the two preceding years. NB: The year in this context means financial year. (ii) Before taking a decision in regard to the amount to be deducted, the ex-member will be called upon by notice in writing to show cause why the deduction should not be made. NB: The year in this context means financial year. (ii) Before taking a decision in regard to the amount to be deducted, the ex-member will be called upon by notice in writing to show cause why the deduction should not be made. The representation made by the ex-member in response to this notice will be submitted to the competent authority for a decision. " Regulation 14 is not at all attracted to the instant case as for the preceding 3 years from the date of dismissal the amount had already been paid by the Corporation, deduction which was made was for the period of suspension 1-7-1984 to 11-2-1997. Even in the Regulation 14 the power is to make deduction is maximum to the preceding 3 years from date of dismissal as that amount has been paid by the Corporation without any demur, it is not open to invoke the Regulation 14 of the FCI so as to justify the recovery made illegality in the instant case. ( 14. ) APART from that the action suffers with gross violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner was not even put to notice before making the deduction. The recovery was entirely impermissible and made in unauthorized manner against the provisions of the scheme. In case of same petitioner in W. P. No. 4209/2002 which decision has been affirmed in L. P. A. No. 254/2003, this Court has directed revision of pay and allowance w. e. f. 1/1/1997 as employer and employee relationship did not come to an end even during the period of suspension. ( 15. ) RESULTANTLY, I find merit in the writ petition. The action of deduction of Rs. 88,304. 00 is quashed. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are directed to make the payment to the petitioner with permissible rate of interest as may be applicable in the case of provident fund. Interest has to be paid till the date payment is made. Let payment be made within two months from today. No costs.