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 claims.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P-12) whereby claim of the petitioner with respect to salary for the suspension period i.e. 27.04.2010 to 30.04.2014 has been declined treating the suspension period as 'not on duty'. The petitioner has been further denied benefit of pension.

2. The petitioner joined respondent-Bank as Clerk on 16.12.1978. The respondent-Bank has amalgamated with Indian Bank. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Scale-1 officer on 27.10.1986. Time to time, he was further promoted. The petitioner was implicated in FIR No.7 dated 27.04.2010 under Section 7 and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar. The petitioner was arrested on 27.04.2010 and he remained in custody till 14.05.2010. The respondent-Bank vide order dated 30.04.2010 (Annexure P-1) suspended the petitioner w.e.f 27.04.2010. It is apt to notice that the petitioner was suspended in terms of Regulation 12(2)(a) of Allahabad Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short 1976 Regulations'). The petitioner on being released on bail preferred representation dated 15.05.2010 before respondent-Bank seeking reinstatement and recalling of suspension order. The respondent-Bank opted to remain silent on the said representation and extended benefit of subsistence allowance to the petitioner. The petitioner attained age of superannuation on 30.04.2014. The petitioner further came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 08.12.2014 passed by the Trial Court. The judgment of acquittal was never challenged and respondent-Bank, though put the petitioner under suspension, yet did not initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner after acquittal, requested the respondent to grant him salary for the suspension period. The petitioner during the said period was granted subsistence allowance. The respondent-Bank vide impugned order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P-12) declined request of the petitioner on the ground that suspension period was 'not on duty' period, thus, petitioner is not entitled to salary for the said period. In other words, the sole ground of rejection of claim of the petitioner is that petitioner did not work during 27.04.2010 to 30.04.2010, thus, he is not entitled to salary. The petitioner has been further denied benefit of pension though he filed option form on 01.11.2010 (Annexure P-23).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner was put under suspension, however, respondent-Bank opted not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner was suspended under Regulation 12 (2)(a) of 1976 Regulations. The petitioner was entitled to salary and not subsistence allowance because respondent could pay subsistence allowance for first 3 months and thereafter in the absence of any inquiry, the respondent-Bank had no authority to withhold salary of the petitioner. The respondent-Bank was quite competent to modify or revoke suspension order, however, respondent-Bank opted not to pass any order on the application of the petitioner. The petitioner was always ready and willing to work. The petitioner during the period in question did not work at any other place and he