- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The grievances of the petitioner is that the respondents have not taken any decision despite his repeated representations for release of full salary for the period of his suspension from 23.8.1991 to 14.6.1995 in view of the Rule 29(2)(b) of Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulation, 1980 as also the regulation of 2001, even though the petitioner has been acquitted of all the criminal charges by the concerned Trial Court vide judgment dated 23.7.2004 annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Rule 29 of 2001 regulation which is at Annexure-11/1 is quoted herein below:- Rule 29:-Officer or employee arrested for debt or on a criminal charge. (1) An Officer or employee who is arrested for debt or on a criminal charge or is detained in pursuance of any process of law may, if so directed by the Competent Authority, be treated as being or having been under suspension from the date of his arrest, or as the case may be of his detention up to such date or during such period as the Competent Authority may direct: Provided that in respect of the period in regard to which he is so treated he shall be paid subsistence allowance as specified in Regulation 44. (2) Any payment made to an officer or employee under sub-regulation (1) shall be subject to adjustment of his pay and allowances which shall be made according to the circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision as to whether such period is to be accounted for as a period of duty or leave. Provided that full pay and allowances shall be admissible only if the officer or employee:- (a) is treated as on duty during such period, and (b) is acquitted of all charges or satisfies the Competent Authority, in case of his release from detention or his detention being set aside by the Competent Court that he had not been guilty of improper conduct resulting in his detention.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are obliged to follow the provisions of Regulation of 2001 applicable to the Bank which have been notified upon the approval of the Central Government and the circular which are operative cannot be said to override the Regulation which have higher legal force.
(3.) Counsel for the respondent-Bank on the other hand submits that the suspension relates to the period from 1991 to 1995 which was revoked by the respondent themselves on 14.6.1995 after the petitioner made an application upon his release on bail on 23.8.1991. The petitioner's representations are contained at Annexure-7 dated 17.8.2004, Annexure-8 dated 30.11.2005, Annexure 8/1 dated 8.12.2004, Annexure-10 dated 14.2.2006 and Annexure-10/1 dated 10.5.2006.;