- (1.) The only point urged for consideration is the manner of treatment of suspension period, as whether to be as on duty or not. It would lead to a query whether the prolonged suspension in the given circumstances was justified or not. This in turn will answer the question of whether the petitioner could have been denied the salary during the entire period of suspension as a period not spent on duty. The petitioner was a Manager in the Oriental Bank of Commerce and there had been a CBI complaint lodged against the petitioner and several others in August 1988. A criminal case was also registered but the Bank did no more than issuing an order of suspension on 13.11.1991 in contemplation of departmental action. The action did not get initiated but the criminal case prolonged and even during the pendency of the criminal court proceedings and before the charge-sheet had been filed, the petitioner had applied to the Bank to revoke the suspension on 10.05.1994. This request was rejected and still later on 14.09.1995, the petitioner's representation made subsequently on 07.09.1995 was rejected on the ground that there was no provision for revocation of suspension orders in Discipline and Appeal Regulations.
(2.) When the criminal case was still pending, a charge-sheet was issued on 20.11.1997 in departmental proceedings and ultimately, the petitioner had been found partially guilty of some of the charges, when the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 18.03.1999. The disciplinary authority proceeded to accept the findings of partial proof of charges rendered by the Enquiry Officer and after serving a notice of the enquiry report to the petitioner and receiving the petitioner's objection, imposed a punishment of reduction to 5 stages lower in time scale of pay with cumulative effect. By the same order, he was also ordered to be reinstated. The order further stated that the period of suspension from the Bank service would not be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes.
(3.) As regards the punishment, the only point for consideration, as we have already observed, is the justification for denying the petitioner the entire period of suspension as period not spent on duty. Regulation 15 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1982 provides for the manner of treatment of the period of service and the pay and allowances on termination of suspension. Clause 1 of Regulation 15 provides that where an officer was fully exonerated or when his suspension was unjustifiable, the petitioner shall be granted the full pay to which he should have been entitled. Clause 2 of the said Regulation provide that in all other cases, the employees would be granted such portion of pay and allowances as the competent authority might direct.;