Delhi High Court
N.M. Jain vs Vijaya Bank on 20 March, 2015
Author: P. S. Teji
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 03rd March, 2015
Judgment Pronounced on: 20th March, 2015
W.P.(C) 11865/2005
N.M. JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Bhalla, Advocate.
versus
VIJAYA BANK ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jagat Arora and Mr. Rajat
Arora, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of
writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent Bank to release full pay and allowances to the petitioner
for the period of his suspension w.e.f. 12.11.1996 to 12.10.1999
with consequential benefits along with interest @ 12% per annum
and to release difference of subsistence allowance for the said
period along with interest.
2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the
petitioner was working as Senior Manager in Vijaya Bank; his
service conditions were governed by Vijaya Bank Officer
Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981; petitioner
was suspended on 11.07.1996 on account of alleged irregularities
while handling public issues of M/s G.K. Consultants Ltd., M/s
Grivs Hotels Ltd. and M/s Natura Hue-Chem Ltd.; he preferred an
appeal dated 22.07.1996; suspension order was revoked and
petitioner was posted at Zonal Office vide order dated 13.08.1996;
petitioner was again suspended vide order dated 12.11.1996; an FIR
was registered by the CBI against the petitioner amongst others;
petitioner preferred an appeal dated 18.02.1997 which was rejected
by the Bank vide order dated 20.05.1997; a charge-sheet dated
09.05.1998 was served upon the petitioner; another charge-sheet
dated 31.07.1998 was served upon him; after inquiry major
punishment of dismissal was given on 12.10.1999; name of the
petitioner was dropped in the charge-sheet filed by the CBI;
petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.08.204 for release of
his pay and allowances but no response to the same was received.
3. The case of the respondents reflected from the counter affidavit is
the denial of the contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner was
working as Senior Manager, Vijaya Bank at Ansari Road Branch
from 23.04.1991 to 30.05.1996; he was suspended vide order dated
11.07.1996 for committing various irregularities; suspension was
revoked vide order dated 13.08.1998; a charge sheet dated
09.05.1998 was issued to him; after conducting departmental
inquiry, he was dismissed from services vide order dated
12.10.1999; after revocation of suspension, petitioner was once
again suspended vide order dated 12.11.1996; charge sheet dated
31.07.1998 was issued to him; an inquiry was conducted which
could not be completed due to his dismissal from service in another
charge-sheet; petitioner was not entitled to receive any pay and
allowances for the period 12.11.1996 to 12.10.1999 as he did not
fall under Regulation 15(1) of the Bank Regulations.
4. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that a representation dated
09.08.2004 (Annexure P-11) was submitted by the petitioner with
the Bank authorities for release of pay and allowances for the
period of suspension w.e.f. 12.11.1996 to 12.10.1999, but no
response to the same has been received so far. Even in the counter
affidavit the respondent avoided to answer the contention of the
petitioner as to what decision has been taken on the same. Learned
counsel vehemently argued that representation of the petitioner is
still pending with the respondent Bank and no decision has been
taken on the same so far.
5. In Para 9 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has mentioned that he
had filed representation dated 09.08.2004. Para 9 of the Writ
Petition reads as under :
"That the Petitioner, as such, was entitled to full pay
and allowances for the period of suspension from
12.11.1996 to 12.10.1999, which have illegally not
been released by the Respondent Bank despite
representation dated 9.8.2004, which was not even
responded by the Respondent Bank."
6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Bank, the
respondent is completely silent on the issue of representation dated
09.08.2004 submitted by the petitioner. It has not been mentioned
by the respondent as to what decision has been taken by them on
the representation of the petitioner with regard to release of pay and
allowances of the petitioner for the aforesaid period. In reply to
para 9 of the writ petition, the respondent mentioned that the
petitioner is not entitled to receive any pay and allowances, but has
not given any rely to the effect whether any decision on the
representation of the petitioner has been taken or not.
7. Admittedly, no decision on the representation dated 09.08.2004
(Annexure P-11) of the petitioner has been taken by the respondent
Bank so far. The contention made by the petitioner in para 9 of the
Writ Petition and the admitted position being no decision taken by
the respondent on the representation shows that the representation
of the petitioner is still pending.
8. In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court is
of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice to
decide the representation (Annexure P-11) of the petitioner.
Consequently, the respondent Bank is directed to decide the
representation dated 09.08.2004 (Annexure P-11) submitted by the
petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the
order.
9. With the above observations, the present Writ Petition is disposed
of. No order as to costs.
P.S.TEJI, J.
March 20, 2015
dd
