SARAL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set-aside the punishment order dated December 18, 1999, order of the appellate authority dated January 27, 2001, to treat the period of suspension as spent on duty and it should be counted for all purposes, quash and set aside the recovery order dated October 16, 2001 and also that if any recovery is being made by the respondents from salary and allowances of the petitioner, during pendency of the writ petition, the said recovery may be declared illegal and directions be issued to the respondents to refund the amount with interest.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case according to the petitioner are that he was initially appointed on the post of Clerk in the respondent Bank. On february 27, 1985, he was doing the main work, which was allotted to him. The Bank Manager, on February 27, 1985 itself verbally directed the petitioner also to work in cash Section to accept share application money of Lumix Industries, as at that relevant point of time there was a great boom in share market.

(3.) THE respondent Bank issued suspension order dated November 13, 1985 to the petitioner. In the suspension order it was mentioned that disciplinary enquiry was contemplated in the alleged involvement in the misappropriation of share application money deposited by the customers of the Bank. Certain other facts regarding payment of subsistence allowance to be paid to the petitioner, were also mentioned. On February 27, 1985, the respondent Bank also suspended one person namely Mr. Sohan Lal Meena, who at the relevant point of time was working in cash section, on same allegations as levelled against the present petitioner. Subsequently the respondent Bank issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner, which the petitioner received on december 18, 1985 in which certain allegations regarding misappropriation of money were levelled. Petitioner immediately on receipt of the charge-sheet submitted a letter dated january 8, 1986 to the respondent Bank praying therein to furnish copies of the record so that he may file reply in the matter. The respondent bank failed to supply any documents to the petitioner, the result of which was that the petitioner did not file reply to the charge-sheet. During pendency of the departmental enquiry, the respondent Bank referred the matter to the central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'the CBI' ). The CBI after registering FIR, filed challan against the petitioner on December 12, 1985 for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC and Sections 5 (2), 5 (1) (c) of the prevention of Corruption Act. In the meanwhile, the disciplinary authority revoked the suspension order of the petitioner vide order dated March 22, 1991 and in the revocation order it was ordered that the petitioner was to be paid salary and emoluments from the date, the petitioner reports for duty at the rate on which the petitioner would have drawn but for his suspension and ordered that fate of the suspension period shall be outcome of enquiry. After filing of the criminal case in CBI Court, the respondent Bank did not initiate the disciplinary proceedings and prefer to await the decision of the Special Judge, CBI.