A bank employee is entitled to full subsistence allowance as per the Bipartite Settlement after one year of suspension if the enquiry is not delayed due to the employee's fault. The Bank cannot deprive the employee of the subsistence allowance even though he was awarded a punishment in the departmental enquiry.

( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant petitioner herein. Writ petitioner, a bank employee had, by that writ petition, claimed his subsistence allowance during the period he was under suspension. The learned Judge held that since in the depertmental proceedings, the petitioner was found guilty and was compulsorily retired by way of punishment, the Bank could deprive him of the unpaid subsistence allowance and, therefore, the petitioner did not have the right to claim the same. Following facts will help us understand the controversy involved.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was put under suspension on 5th October, 1975 while he was working as a clerk in the United Bank of India (hereinafter called the 'bank' for short ). There were three criminal complaints lodged against the petitioner with the police station and he was also served with a chargesheet for the deparmental inquiry on 5. 1. 1977. On 17th May, 1990, two criminal proceedings against the petitioner were quashed by the High Court. On 15. 2. 1992, the suspension order was revoked with a direction that the pay during the period of suspension would depend upon the result of the disciplinary proceedings which were to commence in pursuance of the earlier chargesheet dated 5. 1. 1977. In pursuance of revocation of the suspension order, the petitioer joined service on 10th March, 1992. He made an application to the Bank for the payment of his subsistence allowance under the 4th bipartite Settlement. However, the Bank declined to pay the same and rejected the request. In pursuance of the depertmental inquiry, the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed by the order dated 20th July, 1999. Hewever, subsequently, in pursuance of the order passed by the Single Judge of this high Court in W. P. No. 1608 of 1999 dated 03. 12. 1999, the order of dismissal was reviewed but was confirmed on 22nd December, 1999 by the disciplinary authority. The remaining third criminal case against the petitioner was also quashed by the High Court by its judgment dated 28. 08. 2000. The Bank, however, modified its order of dismissal by an order dated 15th November, 2001 and converted it to the order of compulsory retirement by way of punishment.

( 3 ) AFTER that, he sent a letter dated 20. 11. 2001 to the Bank claiming his unpaid subsistence allowance. However, that was rejected by the Bank by its letter dated 28. 11. 2001, which letter came to be challenged by the petitioner in his writ petition. In his petition, the petitioner pointed out that the Bank was firstly not justified in issuing the Memo dated 6th May, 1992 denying the petitioner's rightful due as also the letter dated 28. 11. 2001. As has been stated earlier, the writ petition came to be dismissed necessitating the present appeal.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the gorund that the learned Judge had not looked into the applicable rules and had gone only by the general principles applicable. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel painstakingly that in his writ petition, the petitioner had pointed out that he had claimed the subsistence allowance for a period of suspension as back as on 11. 03. 1992 for a total period of suspension of 18 years starting from 05. 10. 1975 as per the rules in Bipartite Settlement. However, the respondent Bank had claimed that the subsistence allowance was payable and was governed by the provision of West bengal Payment of Subsistance Allowance Act, 1969 and not under the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement which governed the bank employees. The learned Counsel then points out that the provisions of west Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1969 were more stringent as compared to the Bipartite Settlement and that, in fact, the bank initially had paid the subsistence allowance under the Bipartite se