Nishi Kant vs The Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 2776 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Nishi Kant vs The Union Of India on 20 February, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        W.P.(C) No. 5986 of 2024
Nishi Kant, aged about 46 years, son of Sri Kedar Nath Ambastha,
Permanent Resident of Flat No.3A, Sona Apartment, Badri Bhawan Lane,
Ratu Road, Ranchi, PO-Hehal Ranchi, PS-Sukhdeonagar, Dist-Ranchi,
PIN-834005                                          ... ... Petitioner
                             Versus
1. The Union of India
2. The Deputy General Manager (HRM)/Appellate Authority, Indian Bank
Corporate Office, IR Cell (DP), At-254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, PO & PS-Royapettah, Chennai, State-Tamil Nadu-600014
3. The Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Indian Bank (eAlb), At-4th
Floor, S.P.G. Mart, Bahu Bazaar, District-Ranchi, PO GPO Ranchi, PS-
Lower Bazar, District-Ranchi
4. The Asst. General Manager/Dy.Zonal Manager & Disciplinary Authority,
Indian Bank, Zonal Office At-4th Floor, S.P.G Mart, Bahu Bazaar, District-
Ranchi, PO GPO Ranchi, PS-Lower Bazar, District-Ranchi
                                                      ... ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioner           : Mr. A. R. K. Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents          : Mr. P. A. S. Pati, Advocate
                                 --------

C.A.V On 16.01.2025 Pronounced on 20/02 /2025

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) to quash the order dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure-7) passed by learned Deputy General Manager (HRM)/Appellate Authority (Respondent No.2) and modified the order dated 16.08.2022 (Annexure-5) passed by Asst. General Manager/Dy. Zonal Manager & Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No. 4) to the extent that (a) Suspension may be treated unjustifiable, (b) the acquittal granted by learned Additional Session Judge-V-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad may be treated acquittal for all purpose/honorable, (c) the period of treated as one on duty for all purpose and entitlement for payment of pay including the increment which is due in the month of January every year along with interest and allowances for the period of suspension and

(d) place the petitioner in his original seniority and grant due promotion as the petitioner is entitled to get.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has joined erstwhile employer-Allahabad Bank in January 2008 as a Manager (Law) at its Head Office Kolkata and thereafter he was transferred to Zonal Office, Ranchi in the year 2008 and till the date of suspension i.e. 21.10.2010, he was posted there. It is pleaded that the petitioner was put on deemed suspension vide Letter Ref. No. ZOR/Admn/Vig/CBI/1577 dated 26.10.2010.

The fact further reveals that the petitioner after release from judicial custody on 04.11.2010 submitted representation dated 19.11.2010 for revocation of deemed suspension which was duly received on 22.11.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Court of Additional Session Judge-V-Cum Spl. Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in R.C Case No. 12 (A)/2010-D vide Judgment dated 08.06.2022.

The petitioner again requested vide letter dated 20.06.2022 for revocation of deemed suspension and the Asst. General Manager/Dy. Zonal Manager & Disciplinary Authority vide Letter Ref. No. ZOR/VIG/Susp/2022-23/50 dated 16.08.2022 had revoked the deemed suspension.

Being aggrieved with the conditions imposed for revocation of suspension passed by Asst. General Manager/Dy. Zonal Manager & Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner had preferred an appeal dated 07.09.2022 for modification of the order passed on 16.08.2022 for revocation of deemed suspension. On 19.09.2024, the Deputy General Manager (HRM)/Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.09.2024 has rejected the appeal.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was acquitted from the criminal charge but the respondent-Bank has passed an order that the suspension order issued against him at the time of his first custody shall continue till he has been given appointment after acquittal. It has

been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since no departmental proceeding was ever initiated by the Bank, the petitioner is entitled for full salary during the period of suspension.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Bank relies upon paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit which reads as under:

"8. That with regard to paragraph-13, it is stated that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Hon'ble Court. Chapter 10 para 25 of the Bank's Vigilance Manual provides about the Treatment of service, pay and allowances for officer employees, on termination of suspension and sub- Para 25.2 states that "As per Regulation 15(1) of the 'Indian Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations', where the competent authority holds that the officer employee has been fully exonerated or that the suspension was unjustifiable, the suspension period will be treated as one on duty and the officer employee concerned shall be granted the full pay for the period of his suspension. In such cases, allowances and increments of pay denied to him during the period of his suspension will also be payable to him upon termination of suspension. Further, sub-para 25.3 states that "In all other cases, the suspension period will by default be treated as one on suspension only, unless the competent authority directs otherwise for reasons to be recorded in writing, whereby the officer may be granted such proportion of pay and allowances as the competent authority may direct. Hence, the order of Revocation of Suspension dated 16.08.2022 passed by the Assistant General Manager/Dy. Zonal Manager & Disciplinary Authority which categorically grounded on the above provision is in accordance with law. ..."

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits, it transpires that the petitioner was put on deemed suspension on 26.10.2010 when he was taken into custody and thereafter on 19.11.2010, after he was granted bail, he filed a representation before the respondents for revocation of deemed suspension in view of the fact that he was released from judicial custody on 04.11.2010.

From record it further transpires that the petitioner was also acquitted by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge-V-cum- Special CBI Judge, Dhanbad in R.C Case No. 12 (A)/2010-D vide judgment dated 08.06.2022. It is also evident from record that the petitioner again requested vide letter dated 20.06.2022 for revocation of deemed suspension. Pursuant thereto; the respondent no.4 vide its order dated 16.08.2022 had revoked the deemed suspension.

However, being aggrieved with the condition imposed for revocation of suspension passed by the respondent no.4, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.3 for modification of the order dated 16.08.2022, however, his appeal was also rejected.

6. Admittedly, in this case, no departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner and he was kept in deemed suspension due to his arrest by the police in connection with two criminal cases. Thus, it is crystal clear that the suspension was as a result of his arrest in the criminal case.

The record further reveals that he was acquitted from the criminal case, however, the ground mentioned in the impugned order is only that since the petitioner has not been honourably acquitted, as such he is not entitled for full salary during the suspension period but admittedly, the Bank has never initiated any proceeding departmentally and the cause of suspension was only due to the criminal charge.

7. The law in this regard is well-settled that if for no fault, the employee has been prevented from doing his service then he is entitled for full salary. At the cost of repetition since the respondent-Bank never initiated any departmental proceeding and the cause of suspension was only due to the criminal charge, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for full salary during the period of suspension. The contention of the respondent Bank is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of this case.

In the case of Raj Narain v. Union of India 1 an identical issue was dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the said case even though departmental inquiry was set up but was later on dropped and upon acquittal the employee was reinstated revoking his suspension order. Vide paragraphs 7 and 8 the Court held thus:

"7. The point that remains to be considered is whether the appellant is entitled to payment of full wages between 1979 and 1987. The appellant was placed under suspension on 23-10-1979 and his suspension was revoked on 21-10-1987. An

(2019) 5 SCC 809

interesting development took place during the interregnum by which the disciplinary proceedings were dropped on 21-3-1983. It is clear from the record that the appellant was the one who was seeking postponement of the departmental enquiry in view of the pendency of criminal case. The order of suspension was in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. By virtue of the disciplinary proceedings being dropped, the appellant becomes entitled to claim full salary for the period from the date of his suspension till the date of closure of the departmental enquiry. Thereafter, the respondents took four years to reinstate him by revoking his suspension. The order of suspension dated 23-10-1979 came to an end on 21-3-1983 which is the date on which disciplinary proceedings were dropped. The appellant ought to have been reinstated immediately thereafter unless a fresh order was passed, placing him under suspension during the pendency of the criminal trial which did not happen. Ultimately, the appellant was reinstated by an order dated 21-10-1987 by revocation of the order of suspension. Though, technically, the learned Additional Solicitor General is right in submitting that the impugned judgment does not even refer to the IA, we are not inclined to remit the matter to the High Court at this stage for fresh consideration of this point. We hold that the appellant is entitled for full wages from 23-10-1979 to 21-

10-1987 after adjustment of the amounts already paid towards subsistence allowance.

8. For the reasons mentioned above, we approve the judgment of the High Court by holding that the appellant shall be entitled for back wages only from the date of acquittal on 31-8-2001, till the date of his reinstatement on 20-1-2003. Further, the appellant shall be entitled to full salary from 23-10-1979 to 21-10-1987."

Emphasis Supplied

8. After going through the aforesaid dicta, it can be safely held that petitioner's case is on a much better footing as he was only suspended for detention in jail without there being any inquiry in contemplation and his suspension was revoked immediately upon his acquittal in the criminal case and no appeal was preferred against the judgment of acquittal.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure-7 to the writ application) is quashed and set- aside. The respondents are directed to release the full salary to the petitioner after deducting the subsistence allowance what has already been paid by them to the petitioner. The entire payment shall be made within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

10. Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated:20/02/2025 Amit AFR/