SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Cal) 328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Soumen Sen, Saugata Bhattacharyya, JJ.
United Bank Of India And Another - Appellants
Versus
Jayoti Banerjee And Another - Respondents
GA No.2689 of 2019 and APOT No.144 of 2019
Decided On : 04-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.N. Majumdar, Adv. Mr. Sourav Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Supratim Bhattacharjee, Adv. for the appellant, for the Appellant; Mr. Sudeep Sanyal, Adv. Mr. Sukanta Das, Adv. Ms. Lopamudra Moitra, Adv. Ms. Tutun Das, Adv. for the respondent, for the Respondent

The best possible benefit should be extended to the employee concerned during suspension by way of subsistence allowance.

Headnote:

Suspension Allowance - Employee Entitlement - West Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1969, Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972, Shastri Award - The court discussed the entitlement of an employee to receive full pay and allowance during the period of suspension, taking into account the revision of pay. The court referred to various legal provisions, including the West Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1969, Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972, and the Shastri Award, and highlighted the principle that the best possible benefit should be extended to the employee concerned during suspension by way of subsistence allowance.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an employee of the United Bank of India, was placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry. The disciplinary proceedings concluded with the imposition of dismissal without notice. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking full pay and allowance during the period of suspension, considering the revision of pay.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the circular dated 11th August, 1998, which allowed employees under suspension to be paid subsistence allowance reckoning the revised scales of pay. The court affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge, stating that the best possible benefit should be extended to the employee during suspension by way of subsistence allowance.

Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of the petitioner to receive full pay and allowance during the period of suspension, considering the revision of pay, and the applicability of the West Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1969, and the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the best possible benefit should be extended to the employee concerned during suspension by way of subsistence allowance, and affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.

Final Decision: The appeal and the application were dismissed, affirming the order under appeal.

JUDGMENT

1. The Court : By consent of the parties, the appeal and the application are taken up together for consideration.

2. The petitioner was an employee of the United Bank of India. He was placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry on 10th January, 2004. The petitioner was entitled to subsistence allowance during the period of suspension as per the provisions of bipartite settlement. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner was ultimately concluded on 24th August, 2013 and the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of dismissal without notice. The order of dismissal mentioned that the period of suspension shall not be treated as on duty and the petitioner would not be entitled to any pay and allowance including increment falling due, if any, during the period of suspension save and except what has been paid by way of subsistence allowance. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal and the appellate authority by an order dated 22nd January, 2015 affirmed the order of penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed a writ petition. In the writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent to pay the petitioner full pay and allowance during the period of suspension taking into account the revision of pay. The petitioner also prayed for quashing of the impugned order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. Before the learned Single Judge the petitioner, in support of his contention, had relied upon the following decisions:

i) Premier Automobiles Limited vs. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke reported in (1976) 1 SCC 496 (paragraphs 10 and 23);

ii) Amiyo Kumar Biswas vs. UBI reported in 2006(4) Cal HN 53 (paragraph 13);

iii) Swapan Kumar Basu vs. UBI reported in 2004 (4) CHN 148 (paragraphs 7 and 29);

iv) Biswambhar Basu vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2010 (2) Cal HN 194 (paragraph 6)

3. The petitioner also relied upon Clauses 19.1 to 19.4 of the first bipartite settlement wherein the provisions of the disciplinary action and procedure had been set out. The petitioner also tried to make distinction between gross misconduct and minor misconduct by interpreting Clause 19.4 in his favour. The petitioner also relied on the scale of pay applicable to the bank employees as per the 8th bipartite settlement with effect from 1 st November, 2002 and 9th bipartite settlement dated 1st November, 2007. The petitioner contended before the learned Trial Judge that the delay in disposal of the disciplinary proceedings was not attributable to him and accordingly he is entitled to receive full pay and allowance for the period of suspension in terms of the bipartite settlement. The bank, however, contended before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner is not entitled to receive any subsistence allowance over and above what has been paid to him during the period of suspension till his date of dismissal from service. The disciplinary authority also held that the petitioners suspension shall not be treated as on duty and he will not be entitled to any pay and allowance including increment, if any, fallen due during the period of suspension. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was suspended by an order dated 10th January, 2004. In the said order of suspension it was specifically mentioned that during the period of suspension, the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance as per the provisions of the bipartite settlement. A criminal proceeding was also continuing against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the parallel proceedings by filing a writ petition. By an order dated 25th August, 2004, the Court directed that the departmental proceeding should, for the present, be stayed while an investigation in the criminal case is pending. The bank was given liberty to mention the matter for vacation of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top