Back
High Court Of Calcutta
G. N. Ray, K. M. Yusuf
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, Punjab BANK - Appellant
Versus
DILIP KUMAR DE - Respondent
F. M. A. T. 4045 Of 1984
Decided On : 04/29/1987
Suspension of Bank Employee - Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1977 - Government of India Guidelines for Periodical Review of Suspension Cases - Delay in Completing Criminal Trials - Jurisdiction of High Court to Entertain Writ Petition - Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions.
Fact of the Case:
Dilip Kumar De, an employee of Punjab National Bank, was placed under suspension in 1975 due to allegations of complicity in fraudulent transactions. Criminal cases were instituted against him in Jodhpur and Patna. De challenged the continuation of his suspension and sought consequential relief through a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the delay in completing the criminal trials was not solely attributable to De, and that the Bank had not taken proper steps to expedite the trials. The Court also noted that De had been suffering immense hardship due to the prolonged suspension and that it was desirable to utilize his services gainfully.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 2. Whether the Bank's decision to continue De's suspension was justified in light of the Government of India's guidelines for periodical review of suspension cases.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court held that, in the special facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition was maintainable before the High Court. The Court noted that De was a suspended employee residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, and that he had been making correspondence with the Bank's Head Office in Delhi from his place of residence. 2. On the merits of the case, the Court held that the Bank's decision to continue De's suspension was not justified. The Court noted that the Government of India's guidelines required the Bank to review the situation and decide whether continuance of suspension was desirable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court found that the Bank had failed to provide any reason as to how the interest of the Bank would be better served by continuing the suspension for more than 12 years.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the Bank's appeal and upheld the trial court's order directing the Bank to stay the order of suspension and pay De full pay and allowances.
The judgement provided does not directly address the specific legal principle that a police officer cannot be kept under suspension for more than six months. Instead, it discusses the broader issue of the prolonged suspension of a bank employee, the reasons for such suspension, and the importance of expediting criminal trials and reviewing suspension cases periodically in accordance with government guidelines. The case emphasizes that indefinite suspension without proper review and justification is unreasonable and can amount to punitive action by the passage of time (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
However, it does not explicitly establish or interpret any statutory or constitutional limit, such as a six-month maximum period, for keeping a police officer or any government employee under suspension. The focus is primarily on the procedural and constitutional aspects related to the suspension of bank employees, the delays in criminal trials, and the need for periodic review of suspension orders.
Therefore, the judgement does not answer the specific query regarding the six-month limit for suspension of a police officer.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against order, dated 12th November, 1984 passed in Civil Rule No. 15273 (W) of 1984. The respondent Sri Dilip Kumar De moved a writ application inter alia challenging the continuation of the order of suspension passed against him by the Punjab National Bank and also prayed for consequential relief' on revocation of the order of suspension. On the said writ application, the aforesaid Civil Rule No. 15273 (W) of 1984 was issued by this Court. It may he noted that the respondent writ petitioner Sri De impleaded Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division along with other respondents, via. , respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the writ petition. The aforesaid Rule succeeded before this Court by the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge on 12th November, 1984, but in the instant appeal preferred by the Chairman and Managing Director, Punjab National Bank and three of its officers the respondent No. 1 in the writ petition, the Union of India, has not been impleaded. It appears that during the pendency of the writ proceeding, the learned Trial Judge passed an order on 20th September 1984, inter alia directing the respondents of the writ petition to consider the case of the writ petitioner respondent Sri Dilip Kumar De in the light of the facts and circumstances referred to in the order of the learned Trial Judge. Pursuant to such direction of the learned Trial Judge, the Deputy General Manager (P), Punjab National Bank, had passed an order inter alia holding that the order of suspension passed against Sri De should not remain stayed and/or revoked because such order of revocation of the order of suspension and consequential posting of Sri De would not be in the interest of the Bank.
( 2 ) IT appears from the order passed by the Deputy General Manager (P), Punjab National Bank that the said Deputy General Manager was of the view that delay in disposing of the criminal proceedings against Sri De by the concerned Courts was not on account of any fault on the part of the Bank. It may be noted in this connection that the writ petitioner respondent, Sri De entered the service of Punjab National Bank in 1963 in a Branch Office in Calcutta and after completion of the probation period he was appointed as a probationary clerk-cum-godown keeper sometime in December 1963 and after six months he was made permanent in the Bank's service. Thereafter, the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 was passed and several Banks including Punjab National Bank were nationalised and since then the said Bank has been functioning as a nationalised Bank. The writ petitioner respondent Sri De contended in the writ petition that in consideration of the meritorious service rendered by him, he was promoted to the rank of Accountant in December 1973 and was posted in the Branch Once of the said Bank at Jodhpur in the State of Rajasthan and thereafter, he was transferred to the Branch Office, Exhibition Road, Patna in November, 1974 and thereafter was again transferred to the Regional Office at Patna in April, 1975. While Sri De had been acting as an Accountant in the Regional Office at Patna, he was selected for the post of next higher rank, i. e. , Assistant Manager/officer-in-charge and he was awaiting such posting order.
( 3 ) UNFORTUNATELY, at this time, by a letter, dated July 28, 1975 the Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Patna being respondent No. 5 in the writ petition and the appellant No. 4 in the instant appeal placed Sri De under suspension on and allegation of the complicity of Sri De in some fraudulent transactions in the Bank's Branch at Jodhpur. The petitioner was arrested in connection with a F. I. R. lodged relating to the incident at Jodhpur Branch of the Bank and a criminal case was started against Sri De before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. It appears that
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
