Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1468 (ALL)

Dilip Kumar Soni v. Allahabad Bank

2015-05-29

NARAYAN SHUKLA, RAJAN ROY

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record. The petitioner herein is an employee of the Allahabad Bank. He was posted as Branch Manager, Allahabad Branch, District Shrawasti, earlier. He is alleged to have been involved in demanding and accepting bribe for sanction of K.C.C. loan. In this connection he was arrested and detained by the C.B.I. for a period exceeding 48 hours on the aforesaid criminal allegations. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.12.2012. Consequent to his detention exceeding the period of 48 hours in terms of Regulation 12(2)(a) of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations of 1976'). He submitted an application for revocation of his suspension under Rule 12(5)(b) of the said Regulations of 1976. The said representation had been rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 23.8.2014, which is impugned before us. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prolonged suspension of the petitioner for the past more than two years is unjustified and unsustainable in law. In similar circumstances, others namely Shakeeb Ahmad Zafri, Chaitanya Kumar, Chandra Pal Singh, Mahendra Singh and S.K. Agarwal against whom also criminal proceedings had been initiated and they were detained in custody, their suspension was revoked, but only in the petitioner's case an exception has been made. He relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 1912 of 2015, dated 16.2.2015, Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India and another, wherein, according to him, prolonged suspension in such circumstances had been disapproved. In view of above, he submitted that the continued suspension of the petitioner needs to be brought to an end. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party/Bank submitted that the request for revocation of suspension has been rejected on justified grounds, as criminal prosecution against the petitioner has been sanctioned by the competent authority under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") on 28.2.2013 and the criminal case is pending before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, C.B.I. (West), Lucknow. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not help him. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not help him. He has relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court in Southern Railway Officers v. Union of India, 2009 (9) SCC 24 ; Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola, 1997 (4) SCC 1 ; Punjab National Bank v. Jagdish Singh, 1998 (9) SCC 265 ; C.M. Chaudhari v. S.B.I., 1998 (78) SLR 646 and A.K.K. Nambiar v. U.I.O., 1969 (3) SCC 864 . 4. We have considered submissions of the rival parties and perused the record. 5. Rule 12(1)(b) of the Regulations of 1976 provides that an officer/employee may be placed under suspension by the competent authority where a case against him in respect of criminal offence is under inspection, inquiry or trial. Rule 12(2) of the Regulations provides that an officer/employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the competent authority w.e.f. the date of detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding 48 hours. Rule 12(5) provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this Regulation shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by an authority competent authority to do so. Sub-rule (b) of Rule 12(5) provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this Regulation may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made or deemed to have made the order. 6. Initially the petitioner herein was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.12.2012 under Regulation 12(2), referred to above, on the ground of his detention exceeding 48 hours in connection with a criminal charge. By the time his application for revocation of the suspension under Regulation 12(5)(b) came up for consideration, not only the competent authority had sanctioned his prosecution under Section 19 of the Act on being satisfied that a prima facie case existed against him, but the criminal case also became pending against him before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, C.B.I. (West), Lucknow, thereby attracting the provisions contained in Regulation 12(1)(b) allowing the suspension to continue on account of pendency of an investigation, inquiry or trial in respect of any criminal offence. In these circumstances, on a perusal of the impugned order, we find that it contains cogent reasons for declining to revoke the suspension which does not suffer from any error in the eyes of law. We do not find any valid ground for interference in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, specially in view of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party and referred hereinabove. 7. As far as the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, we are of the view that as the petitioner was Branch Manager in a nationalized bank, his position was one of Trust vis-a-vis the Bank and its customers and the Supreme Court has repeatedly held in the case of Bank Employees that they have to maintain the highest degree of integrity, sincerity and trust and any act breaching the same has to be viewed seriously. 8. The petitioner herein is alleged to have demanded and accepted bribe for which the criminal case is pending against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, therefore, under these circumstances, persuaded by the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the opposite parties are justified in refusing to revoke the suspension, as, if the petitioner is put back in service with such serious charges, neither the possibility of repetition of the earlier acts, as alleged, can be ruled out nor the serious consequences flowing therefrom for the Bank. The Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and others v. Deepak Kumar Bhola (supra), has observed that it would be inconceivable that a Bank should allow an employee to continue to remain on duty when he is facing serious charges of corruption and misappropriation of money. Accordingly, it quashed the judgment of the High Court quashing the order of suspension of an employee of the Allahabad Bank, i.e., the same Bank involved herein. 9. In view of the above, we are of the view that the proposition laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case (supra), relied by the petitioner cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, specially as the petitioner being an employee of the Bank stands on a different footing, vis-a-vis other employees. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition lacks merits and is dismissed.