SHEKHAR B.SARAF,J. - (1.) The writ petitioner essentially has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Court, to demand the payment of back-wages. The petitioner has alleged that such payment of back-wages is due to him as a result of the unjustified prolongation of suspension imposed by his employer, the Respondent Bank.
(2.) The petitioner is currently in the employ of the Indian Bank, posted as the incumbent Senior Manager of the aforesaid bank in its Stressed Asset Management Branch in Kolkata. Such employment is a result of the amalgamation of Indian Bank along with his erstwhile employers, the Allahabad Bank, which based on the decision of the Union Ministry of Finance to merge certain public sector banks, provided for such merger under The Amalgamation of Allahabad Bank into Indian Bank Scheme, 2020 , vide notification no. GSR 156(E) dated March 4, 2020. As a consequence, with effect from April 1, 2020, the Allahabad Bank stands amalgamated into the Indian Bank.
(3.) The facts of the case possess a checkered history, and therefore, demand some elucidation. a. The petitioner had joined the erstwhile employer - Allahabad Bank, originally in 2008 as a Manager (Credit) at its Zonal Office at Behala. However, he was subsequently transferred to the bank's Adisaptagram Branch. It was while he was posted there that the petitioner alleges that he was a victim of a criminal conspiracy hatched by a loan applicant at the branch, namely Shri Moni Majumdar, who displayed the sizeable exercise of his political? clout. b. On August 20, 2014, the petitioner was arrested by the police authorities stationed at the Mogra Police Station based on a First Information Report (F.I.R.) that was instituted by the alleged vindictive loanapplicant/complainant (a third-party to this lis) in case no. 316 of 2014. The case was initiated under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PCA ) wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had demanded and consequently accepted illegal gratification to the tune of INR 25,000/- from the complainant to process and sanction a loan to the complainant. c. As the writ petitioner's period of police detention post his arrest exceeded forty-eight (48) hours, the petitioner was placed under deemed suspension in terms of the governing Service Regulations applicable to the petitioner, namely, the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees? (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Regulations ) by the competent authority under Regulation 12(2)(a) of the said Regulations. This order of deemed suspension was communicated to the petitioner on August 23, 2014. d. With promptitude, the petitioner appealed against the above order of deemed suspension dated August 23, 2014 before the General Manager, by filing a written representation dated September 23, 2014 and sought for revocation of the such order of deemed suspension. The pertinent authority considered the representation filed and declined the petitioner's request by a communication dated January 19, 2015. e. The petitioner challenged this appellate order dated January 19, 2015 by instituting a writ petition being W.P. No. 5762 of 2015. The learned Single Judge, upon hearing both parties, allowed the writ petition by an order dated March 3, 2015. While setting aside the order dated January 19, 2015, it parted with the directions to the Chief Manager of the Allahabad Bank to reconsider the petitioner's plea and revoke the deemed order of suspension in accordance with law while communicating a reasoned order to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the said order. f. The Appellate Authority of the Bank, based on such directions of the learned Single Judge of this Court, considered the petitioner's representation once again and rejected his request for revocation of the deemed suspension dated August 23, 2014 by an order dated March 18, 2015. Constrained for options, the petitioner preferred another writ petition being W.P. No. 7288(W) of 2015 assailing the above order dated March 18, 2015. g. By an order dated April 21, 2015, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Appellate Authority of the bank dated March 18, 2015, and directed for the reinstatement of the petitioner by the beginning of May, 2015? while specifying that the petitioner would be entitled to his regular salary and emoluments from the day the petitioner resumes his duties. The learned Singh Judge also added a caveat, that it would be open to the bank authorities to transfer the petitioner to any other branch or assign him any such duty wherein he may not have the opportunity of tampering with the elements of the investigation in the ongoing case registered against him. h. The Respondent Bank, immediately pressed for a stay of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated April 21, 2015. A learned Division of this Court, while considering MAT 699 of 2015 in addition to CAN 4436 of 2015, by an order dated June 8, 2015, granted a stay of the operation of the impugned order dated April 21, 2015 for a period of three months, while recording that the dictum of the Supreme Court that had been relied on by the learned Single Judge did very little to serve the case of the petitioner (respondent in MAT 699 of 2015). i. The intra-court appeal bearing FMA No. 3451 was taken up for a hearing by a learned Division Bench of this Court in August 2017 and the judgment of the Court dated August 16, 2017, brought with it a divergence of findings. While the Hon'ble Justice Patherya held in favour of the Bank and set aside the impugned order dated April 21, 2015, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subrata Talukdar differed in his interpretation, and chose to uphold the impugned order. j. Based on such divergence of opinion of the two Hon'ble Judges constituting the said Division Bench, the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, who accordingly referred the matter to a Referral Bench comprising the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sahidullah Munshi, by an order of assignment dated December 10, 2018. k. As the matter was taken up by the Referral Bench, the learned Judge disposed of the reference by an order dated August 30, 2019 while holding that the decision of the Respondent Bank in prolonging the suspension without initiation of departmental proceedings was opposed to the due process of law, a facet entrenched within the contours of Article 21 of the Constitution and that the petitioner was entitled to get all benefits pursuant to the order impugned.? l. Based on the order of the Referral Bench, the Respondent Bank finally revoked the order of deemed suspension dated August 23, 2014 by an order dated October 23, 2019 while specifying that such revocation would be effective from the date he assumed the duties at his place of posting as ordered by the pertinent authorities and the period of suspension served by the petitioner would be treated as non-duty , meaning thereby that he would be ineligible to draw his regular salary and ancillary emoluments sans the subsistence allowance that was already paid to him for the above mentioned period. m. The petitioner joined his new place of posting based on the order dated October 23, 2019 but subsequently filed a written representation dated February 7, 2020 with the concerned authority, requesting for the release of his regular salary, increments, allowances, et al in compliance with the orders of this Court dated August 30, 2019 and April 21, 2015. n. By an order dated May 20, 2020, the Assistant General Manager of the Respondent Bank informed the petitioner that his request for the grant of back wages by the bank, had been rejected. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has yet again challenged this order of the bank dated May 20, 2020 by filing this writ petition and has sought the grant of back-wages for the period served under deemed suspension. ;