The main legal point established in the judgment is the implication of the principle of natural justice in cases involving the treatment of the period of suspension, emphasizing the duty of the authority to act justly and fairly when exercising such discretion.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.1.2003, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ application filed by the appellant challenging the order of punishment awarded after completion of the departmental proceeding as well as the order holding that the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty.

2. The writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment. The respondent-Bank filed a counter-affidavit stating that after imposition of penalty and withdrawal of the suspension order, an order has also been passed in terms of Regulation 30(4) of the Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank Service Regulation, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Service Regulation) holding that the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty. Thereafter, the appellant filed an interlocutory petition challenging the said order dated 30.4.1998 as Annexure 13 to the writ application.

3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the appellant is an employee of the respondent-Bank. With regard to certain allegations, a departmental proceeding was initiated and the appellant was given full opportunity of hearing and, thereafter, the order of punishment was passed by the disciplinary authority on 31.3.1998 imposing penalty of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect. The appellant preferred an appeal, which was dismissed with modification on 2.9.1999 and the penalty of withholding of four increments was reduced to two increments.

4. It appears that the appellant was suspended during the continuance of a departmental proceeding on 21.3.1995 and the said order of suspension was withdrawn on 31.3.1998 by a separate order, on which date order of punishment was passed. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 30.4.1998, has ordered that the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty. So far as the imposition of penalty by the appellate authority is concerned, the learned Single Judge found no legal infirmity in the said order and dismissed the writ application.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this Court has also not been able to persuade us to take a different view in the matter regarding imposition of penalty. Accordingly, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or material irregularity in the order of imposition of penalty. He, howeve, challenged the order dated 30.4.1998 holding that the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty and submitted that the said order has been passed without giving an opportunity to the appellant of being heard.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank, on the other hand, submitted that proviso to Regulation 30(4) of the Service Regulation does not require to give an opportunity of hearing and in absence of any such provision, no opportunity was given to the appellant before exercising the power under the aforesaid provision.

7. The learned Single Judge has agreed with the contention of the Bank and held that there is no requirement of giving an opportunity of hearing before exercising the power under Regulation 30(4) of the Service Regulation. Thus, the only question to be considered in this case is as to whether an opportunity of hearing is to be given to the person concerned or not while deciding the question as to how the period of suspension is to be treated as provided under Regulation 30(4) of the Service Regulation.

8. Before proceeding to consider the submissions advanced at the Bar, it is apt to quote Regulation 30{4) of the Service Regulation, which runs as follows :

"30(4) An Officer or employee may be placed under suspension by the officer empowered to pass the final order under regulation. During such suspension, the officer or employee shall receive subsistence allowance equal to one-third of basic pay the officer or employee was receiving of the date prior to the date of suspension, pl