H. N. Wadhwa vs Punjab National Bank & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 3816 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No.7343/2014

%                                                          14th May, 2015

H. N. WADHWA                                               ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr. Ashok Bhalla, Advocate.

                          versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR.                 ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Jagat Arora, Advocate with Mr.
                          Rajat Arora, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner seeks the relief against the respondent no.1/Bank that

once the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 10.6.1991 was set aside by the

learned Single Judge of this Court treating it to be non est vide judgment

dated 20.12.2006 in W.P.(C) No.3047/1993, petitioner during the pendency

of the disciplinary proceedings/departmental proceedings which afresh was

to then decide the punishment to be imposed upon the petitioner, petitioner

should be treated to be on deemed suspension in this period after 10.6.1991

W.P.(C) No.7343/2014                                                Page 1 of 6
 till the time fresh order was passed by the departmental authority till

31.10.2008 when the petitioner retired on attaining the age of

superannuation. It may be noted that pursuant to the judgment of the learned

Single Judge of this Court dated 20.12.2006 in W.P.(C) No.3047/1993, and

which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and the Supreme

Court, departmental authority of the respondent no.1/Bank passed a fresh

order against the petitioner on 26.4.2013 re-imposing the same punishment

on the petitioner of dismissal of petitioner, and which was originally

imposed on 10.6.1991.


2.           In sum and substance, the claim of the petitioner is for

suspension/subsistence allowance from 10.6.1991 till the passing of the fresh

order by the Disciplinary Authority or till the date of superannuation of the

petitioner, whichever is earlier, and since the date of superannuation being

the earlier date in this case, subsistence allowance is claimed till the date of

superannuation of the petitioner on 31.10.2008.


3.           The relevant Regulations 12(4) and 12(5) of the respondent

no.1/Bank dealing with suspension during re-hearing by departmental

authority, read as under:-



W.P.(C) No.7343/2014                                                 Page 2 of 6
      "12(4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory
     retirement from service imposed upon an officer employee under
     suspension is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence
     of or by a decision of a court of law, and the disciplinary authority,
     on consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold
     further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of
     dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed,
     the officer employee shall be deemed to have been placed under
     suspension by the competent authority from the date of the original
     date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall
     continue to remain under suspension until further orders.
     12(5)(a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made
     under this regulation shall continue as remain in force until it is
     modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so.
     (b)      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 is deemed to have made the order."
                                                   (underlining added)
4.            The object of the aforesaid regulations is that if these

regulations did not exist, then, it would have been open to an employee to

state that once the order of the departmental authority is set aside the

charged employee will be taken to be in service and he has to be paid all the

consequential benefits of being in service, and to avoid this position the

suspension is deemed to continue even during the second phase of the

departmental proceedings after the earlier order of the disciplinary authority

is set aside and proceedings are to continue against the charged official.

However, the object of this provision is not to deprive even the suspension

allowance to a charged officer inasmuch as the charged officer during the
W.P.(C) No.7343/2014                                                Page 3 of 6
 period of departmental proceedings against him, may not be entitled to

service benefits of salary etc, but, there is no provision of law or any service

rule of the respondent no.1/Bank that a charged employee during the period

of departmental proceedings should not even receive the suspension

allowance.


5.           Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly places reliance upon

the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported as S.M.

Gupta Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and Ors. 115 (2004) DLT 257 and

which holds that once the order of the disciplinary authority is set aside and

a person is to be taken in service, then, in accordance with Regulation 12(4)

as quoted above, the charged officer is deemed to be on suspension and

suspension allowance would have to be paid to such a charged official. I

may note that in the present case the learned Single Judge of this Court

while allowing W.P.(C) No.3047/1993 filed by the petitioner vide judgment

dated 20.12.2006 held that the petitioner will be entitled to his pay and

allowance and other benefits treating the order of punishment to be non est

except only to the extent that petitioner will be deprived of these

benefits on account of the punishment order which was to be passed

afresh by the departmental authority in terms of the said judgment.

W.P.(C) No.7343/2014                                                 Page 4 of 6
 No doubt, the departmental authority has re-visited the petitioner with the

punishment of dismissal from service, however, petitioner cannot be denied

even the suspension allowance and this is more so because of Regulation

12(4) of the respondent no.1/Bank. I may note that the petitioner has made a

statement before this Court that petitioner is only claiming the relief of

payment of subsistence allowance to him from 10.6.1991 to 31.10.2008 and

is not claiming the other reliefs which are prayed in the writ petition,

however, liberty as prayed for is granted to the petitioner to challenge the

subsequent order of the departmental authority dated 26.4.2013, of course in

accordance with law.


6.          Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.          Respondent

no.1/Bank is directed to pay the petitioner suspension allowance from

10.6.1991 to 31.10.2008 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum simple from

the due dates of each month from which the subsistence allowance became

due. Petitioner be paid the amounts due in terms of the present judgment

within a period of two months from today. In case, the amounts due to the

petitioner are not paid within two months from today, petitioner will be

entitled to interest @ 9% per annum simple instead of 6% per annum simple.




W.P.(C) No.7343/2014                                             Page 5 of 6
 7.          Petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid

observations.




MAY 14, 2015                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne