1. Suspension period regularization after disciplinary proceedings culminated with penalty imposition. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 5045
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J
Ramesh Jaradhara – Appellant
Versus
Assam Gramin Vikash Bank – Respondent
WP(C)/4333/2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. R Sarmah, Ms P Saha
For the Respondents: SC, A G V B
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. R Sarmah, Ms P Saha
For the Respondents: SC, A G V B
The disciplinary authority is mandated to regularize the period of suspension following the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, provided the employee is not dismissed or removed, by passing a speaking order based on the nature of the misconduct and the penalty imposed.
Headnote:(A) Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 - Regulation 48 - Regularization of suspension period - An order of suspension is not in the nature of a penalty but is intended to facilitate the collection of evidence and prevent tampering with records (Para 10). Upon conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, if the delinquent is not removed or dismissed from service, the period of suspension must be regularized as on duty or otherwise by the competent authority (Para 11, 12). The disciplinary authority is mandated to regulate this period by appreciating the allegations, the materials on record, and the nature of the penalty imposed (Para 15).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Manager at the Sivasagar Branch of the respondent Bank, was suspended for 19 months following allegations of misappropriating Rs. 6,241/-. A penalty of reduction of basic pay by two stages was imposed. Although a coordinate bench subsequently modified the penalty to be without cumulative effect, the disciplinary authority did not pass any order regarding the regularization of the suspension period. The petitioner sought the release of salaries for the suspension period under Regulation 48 of the 2010 Service Regulations.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that Regulation 48 mandates the competent authority to decide whether the employee should be paid the difference between subsistence allowance and emoluments or treat the period as spent on duty. In the present case, the Bank failed to pass such a mandatory order.
Issues: Whether the period of suspension must be regularized under Regulation 48 and whether the petition was barred by the principle of res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the regularization of the suspension period is a mandatory function of the disciplinary authority upon the conclusion of proceedings, provided the employee has not been dismissed or removed. This decision must be based on a wholesome consideration of the allegations and the penalty imposed.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with direction to the Bank to pass a speaking order within three months.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
- service law
- judicial review
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought regularization under regulations; respondent argued res judicata and sought remand for authority's decision. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Disciplinary authority must pass order under Regulation 48 regulating suspension period upon imposing penalty. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Under Regulation 48, disciplinary authority must decide suspension period treatment after penalty, not automatically deemed duty. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
5. Directed competent authority to pass speaking order regulating suspension period under Regulation 48 within three months. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
6. Is it mandatory for the disciplinary authority to pass an order regulating the period of suspension upon imposition of a penalty?
Yes, under Regulation 48 of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, the disciplinary authority must pass an order regulating the suspension period at the time of imposing the penalty. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 )
7. Does the period of suspension automatically become treated as duty if the employee is not dismissed or removed?
No, it is at the discretion of the competent authority. Under Regulation 48(2), the period may be treated as spent on duty or otherwise, as the competent authority may direct. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
8. Can a fresh writ petition be barred by res judicata if the issue of suspension regularization was not raised in an earlier petition challenging the penalty?
The court considered the plea of res judicata but proceeded to direct the authority to pass an order, implying the issue can be raised separately as it pertains to a different relief. (Para 9 )
9. What factors must the disciplinary authority consider when deciding how to regulate a suspension period?
The authority must consider the allegations leveled, the evidence established in the inquiry, and the nature of the penalty imposed to arrive at a decision. (Para 10 , 13 , 15 )
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 19.02.2026
Heard Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A Ganguly, learned standing counsel, A.G.V.B, Assam, appearing for all the respondents.
2. The petitioner, in the present proceedings, has raised a grievance, with regard to the non-regularization of his period of suspension for about 19 (Nineteen) months after the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him had culminated with imposition of a penalty upon him.
3. The petitioner, while being posted as Manager, Operations at the Sivasagar Branch of the respondent Bank, was alleged to have committed a misconduct and accordingly, basing on such allegations, the petitioner came to be placed under suspension vide an order dated 23.08.2012. Thereafter, the departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner, basing on an allegation of having misappropriated an amount of Rs. 6241/- (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Forty One Only). On conclusion of the said departmental proceeding, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, vide an order dated 25.03.2014, proceeded to impose upon him, a penalty of "reduction of basic pay by 2(two) stages with cumulative effect". Thereafter, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked, vide order dated 25.03.2014. The petitioner being aggrieved by the imposition of the said penalty, assailed the same by way of instituting a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 5826/2014. A coordinate Bench of this Court, vide an order dated 01.08.2024, proceeded to dispose of the said Writ Petition by interfering with the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner to the extent of the same being imposed with cumulative effect. A coordinate Bench of this Court, vide the said judgment and order dated 01.08.2024, modified the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner to that of "Reduction of the Basic pay by 2 (two) stages". The Coordinate Bench of this Court, while considering the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner, had, however, not made any observation, with regard to the manner in which the period of suspension of the petitioner is to be reckoned. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the respondent authorities for regularization of his period of suspension by relying on the provisions of Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 48 of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. The said approach of the petitioner, having not evoked any response from the respondents, the petitioner has instituted the present Writ Petition.
4. Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts as noticed hereinabove, has submitted that Regulation 48 of the said Regulations of 2010, mandates the manner in which the period of suspension of an employee, who is subjected to a disciplinary proceeding, is to be reckoned. He submits that the respondent authorities, in terms of the Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 48, is to pass an order with regard to the manner in which the period of suspension is to be so reckoned while imposing the penalty upon the petitioner, on conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding instituted against him. Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order, passed by the disciplinary authority, imposing the penalty upon the petitioner, does not deal with the period of suspension undergone by the petitioner, herein. Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the provisions of Sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 48, submits that on conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding against a member of the service, a penalty of removal from service or dismissal of service is not imposed, the period of suspension undergone by the person is deemed to be spent on duty or otherwise, as the competent authority may direct. Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the express provisions of Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 48, the petitioner herein, having not been
