Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
D. B. Madan – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank Through Its Chief Manager – Respondent
W.P.(C) 10457 of 2019
Decided On : 30-05-2023
Suspension - Pension Calculation - Regulations 1977 - The court examined the Petitioner's request for quashing the order rejecting the suspension period as period in service and payment of balance salary. The court also considered the denial of the difference between full salary and subsistence allowance, and the treatment of the length of service for computation of pension. The court found that the Petitioner was fully exonerated and acquitted by the Trial Court, and that the charge sheet in the disciplinary proceedings was quashed. The court held that the denial of back wages for the suspension period and the refusal to treat the suspension period as spent on duty were illegal and unjustified. The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order and directing the Respondent to refix the salary and emoluments of the Petitioner from 1994, giving benefits of increments and pay revisions, and releasing the arrears of pension calculated after taking six additional years of service towards computation of pensionary benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, an officer at Punjab National Bank, was placed under suspension in 1994 due to a criminal case and was reinstated in 2000 pending final adjudication. The Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case in 2018. The Respondent denied the Petitioner's request to treat the suspension period as period in service and to count the suspension period for computation of pension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner was fully exonerated and acquitted by the Trial Court, and that the charge sheet in the disciplinary proceedings was quashed. The court held that the denial of back wages for the suspension period and the refusal to treat the suspension period as spent on duty were illegal and unjustified.
Issues: The issues before the court were whether the Petitioner was entitled to full salary for the suspension period and the correctness of the action of the Respondent to treat the length of service as 25 years instead of 31 years for computation of pension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Petitioner was fully exonerated and acquitted by the Trial Court, and that the charge sheet in the disciplinary proceedings was quashed. The court found that the denial of back wages for the suspension period and the refusal to treat the suspension period as spent on duty were illegal and unjustified.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order and directing the Respondent to refix the salary and emoluments of the Petitioner from 1994, giving benefits of increments and pay revisions, and releasing the arrears of pension calculated after taking six additional years of service towards computation of pensionary benefits.
Key Points: - The petitioner was allowed back wages for the suspension period and the period was to be treated as spent on duty for pension calculation, with arrears of pension computed after adding six years of service (!) (!) - Regulation 15(1) provides full pay and allowances if fully exonerated or suspension unjustifiable; Regulation 15(3)(a) treats the suspension period as period spent on duty when covered by sub-regulation (1) (!) (!) (!) - The court quashed the impugned order, directed refixation of salary from 1994 with increments, and release of pension arrears calculated with six additional years of service (!) (!) - The acquittal in the criminal case was considered in determining whether the suspension should be treated as spent on duty for pension purposes (!) (!) - The case discusses distinctions between honourable vs. not honourable acquittals and their impact on entitlements under Regulation 15(1) (!) (!) - The respondent had previously counted suspension period for gratuity and pension from date of acquittal (25.05.2018) but denied full back wages; the court resolved in petitioner's favor (!) (!) - The final order directs back wages for suspension period minus subsistence allowance and counts suspension as spent on duty for pension purposes, with refixation of salary and arrears (!)
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
1. By this writ petition, Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21.01.2019, whereby his representation for treating the suspension period as period in service and payment of balance salary has been rejected. A writ of certiorari is also sought for quashing the order dated 11.02.2019, by which Petitioner was informed that the period of suspension from 17.12.1994 to 13.12.2000 would be treated as period of service without break and counted towards qualifying service for calculation of terminal dues but from the date of acquittal of the Petitioner in the criminal case i.e. 25.05.2018. Writ of Mandamus is sought directing the Respondent to release to the Petitioner the difference between full salary and subsistence allowance with interest for the suspension period and also to treat the length of service as 31 years instead of 25 years for computation of pension.
2. The factual score that emerges from the writ petition is that Petitioner joined the Respondent/Punjab National Bank as an Officer in September, 1976. On 31.08.1992, Central Bureau of Investigation (`CBI') registered an FIR against few officials of the Bank including the Petitioner for alleged irregularities in some loan accounts of M/s Pankaj Finance & Leasing Ltd. (PFLL). In September, 1993, New Bank of India was merged with Respondent/Punjab National Bank and in October, 1994, sanction was given for prosecution of some employees of the Bank, including the Petitioner and a charge sheet was issued thereafter.
3. On 17.12.1994, Petitioner was placed under suspension, which was revoked on 13.12.2000, without prejudice to the criminal proceedings/disciplinary action pending/contemplated against him with a further direction in the order to post him at a non-sensitive post on the administrative side. One month before his superannuation, a show-cause notice was served on the Petitioner on 30.05.2007 for certain irregularities to which a reply was sent by the Petitioner on 12.06.2007. On 28.06.2007, Petitioner was informed that in the wake of contemplated disciplinary proceedings, his superannuation benefits shall be withheld. Petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2007.
4. Challenging the show-cause notice and the order dated 28.06.2007, Petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court being W.P.(C) 1290/2008, which was disposed of on 15.09.2008 with a direction to the Respondent to take a decision on the show-cause notice within four weeks. Instead of deciding the show-cause notice Respondent served a charge sheet on the Petitioner on 06.10.2008.
5. On 29.11.2009, Respondent gave a second option for pension to the Petitioner on deposit of Bank's contribution of Provident Fund and Petitioner opted for pension and deposited the desired amount. Consequent thereto, Respondent started paying pension to the Petitioner w.e.f. 29.11.2009 but without taking into consideration the period of 6 years during which Petitioner was placed under suspension and hence the total period computed for pension was taken as 25 years.
6. In the meantime, Petitioner challenged the charge sheet by filing W.P.(C) 7481/2008 before this Court, which was allowed vide judgement dated 29.10.2013, quashing the charge sheet as being without jurisdiction, with a further direction that Petitioner be paid the retirement benefits along with interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f 01.07.2007. Admittedly, this judgement was never assailed by the Respondent and was implemented by paying the retirement dues along with interest.
7. Significantly, vide judgement dated 25.05.2018, the CBI Court acquitted the Petitioner of all criminal charges while some of the co-accused were convicted. Armed with the judgement, Petitioner sent a representation dated 04.06.2018 to the Respondent requesting for treating the suspension period from 17.12.1994 to 13.12.2000 as spent on duty and payment of the difference between the salary and subsistence allowance already paid, as also to treat the length of service as 31 yea
The denial of back wages for the suspension period and the refusal to treat the suspension period as spent on duty were illegal and unjustified.
An employee acquitted in a criminal case is entitled to salary for the suspension period if no departmental proceedings are initiated, emphasizing the duty of the employer to reconsider suspension cl....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between 'honourable acquittal' and acquittal by extending benefit of doubt, and its impact on the employee's entitlement to serv....
The bank cannot be held liable to pay salary and allowances for the period when the employee did not discharge his duties due to his own involvement in misconduct. The discretion of the Disciplinary ....
The competent authority has the power to grant full pay and allowances for the period of suspension if it is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified.
Acquittal in bribery case does not automatically entitle suspended employee to full backwages; competent authority may treat suspension as leave, applying 'no work no pay' where prosecution not by em....
An employee acquitted of criminal charges is not automatically entitled to salary or benefits for the suspension period unless explicitly provided by the reinstatement terms. (Sections 10(1)(b)(i) an....
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
