Ram Mukesh Gupta vs Rai Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Others

N.K. Mehrotra, J.—This is a writ petition for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 7.10.2003 and Board''s Resolution dated 24.9.2003 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, by which the appeal against the order of suspension dated 11.10.2002 has been dismissed. Petitioner Ram Mukesh Gupta is an employee of Raebareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank. One Santosh Pandey lodged an FIR against him on 7.10.2002 with Special Police (Establishment) (CBI) under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and he was arrested by the CBI on the charge of taking bribe of Rs.2000 from the complainant Santosh Pandey. On his arrest, he was suspended on 11.10.2002 vide Annexure No.5. Later on he was released on bail on 28.11.2002. He submitted representation to the Chairman of the Bank requesting to allow him to join duties. His suspension was not revoked. He filed a Writ Petition No.1134 (S/B) of 2003. This Court disposed of the writ petition by an order as contained in Annexurs No.2 on the ground of alternative remedy with the direction to the competent authority to decide the Appeal within a period prescribed in the order. The petitioner preferred an appeal but the appeal was rejected by the impugned order. The case of the petitioner is that after the grant of the bail, he is entitled to join the duties and he deemed suspension should be revoked because the trial will take a lot of time. It is further alleged that in the instant case no departmental proceedings have been initiated and he was suspended merely on the ground of arrest by the CBI. It is contended that the deemed suspension is confined for the period of suspension and not beyond that unless modified by another fresh order. The suspension of the petitioner is continuing since long even after his release from Jail, which is not in accordance with the earlier decision of this Court. After the release from the jail no fresh suspension order has been passed. The action of the opposite party is in violation of Regulation 29 of Raebareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Services Regulation, 2001.

The case of the petitioner is that during the detention he was suspended and therefore it is a case of deemed suspension which shall stand automatically revoked unless a fresh order is issued by the competent authority. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a full benah decision in Chandra Shekhar Saxena v. Director of Education (Basic), UP., Lucknow and another. (1997) 1 UPLBEC 165. This contention has no force. The full bench decision of this Court cited above, has been overruled by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar, JT 2003 (5) SC 617: (2003 (21) LCD 1396).

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the case of the petitioner is of deemed suspension, has also no force because under Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation 2001 there is no regulation providing automatic deemed suspension. There are two regulations, which deal with suspension. It is only on the direction of competent authority that an employee can be treated under suspension. The Regulation 45 dealing with suspension provides that an officer or employee may be placed under suspension by the competent authority and during such suspension officer or employee shall be entitled for, subsistence allowance as provided therein.

Regulation 46 deals with treatment of suspension period and allied matters. Regulation 47 provides the right to appeal against the order of suspension.

Regulation 29 also provides for the suspension. A relevant portion of Regulation 29 is as follows:

Regulation 29(1): An officer or employee who is arrested for debt or on criminal charge or is detained in pursuance of any process of law, may, if so directed by the competent authority, be treated being or having been under suspension from the date of his arrest or is 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 74."

The aforesaid regulation 29 makes it clear that in case of suspension on a criminal charge, an employee shall be suspended if so directed by the competent authority and he will remain suspended up to such date or during such period as the competent authority may direct.

Here in the instant case the competent authority has passed a fresh order in continuation of the earlier order of suspension dated 11.10.2002 vide Annexure No.4 dated 14.8.2003. The relevant portion of this order is as follows:

"You have requested vide letter dated 3.12.2002 which is received on 26.4.2003, for lifting of suspension and allow you to join the bank duties.

We observed that your alleged misconduct involves moral turpitude and has a bearing on the discharge of duties as officer (Advances) in the bank, and the undersigned considers it necessary to keep remain you under suspension under Regulation 29 of Raibareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2001.

Now therefore, the undersigned Chairman/Disciplinary Authority has decided to continue your suspension pending trial as referred above.''''

Thus in view of the competent, authority the misconduct on the basis of which the suspension order has been passed involves moral turpitude and has bearing on the discharge of duties.

After the earlier order of this court in Writ Petition 1134 (S/S) of 2003, the competent authority has disposed of the appeal by rejecting the appeal by saying that the granting of the bail by the High Court is in no way an acquittal or conviction as far as the criminal case is concerned. Another reason is that the petitioner has been primafacie (sic) for grave criminal offence of asking receiving the bribe from Bank constituent. It has also been observed in the impugned order that the offence is of a very serious nature.

In view of the reasons given in the impugned order I do not find it a fit case for interference in the impugned order dismissing the appeal.

At the time of the argument the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is under suspension since 11.10.2002 and trial will take a lot of time in the conclusion and he has been granted bail only for the reason that trial will take a long time. I find that the suspension for a very long period does not render the suspension invalid. The period of suspension should not be unnecessarily prolonged but if the plausible reasons exist and the authorities feel that the suspension need to be continued, merely because it is for a long period, that does not invalidate the suspension. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar (supra).

In view of the above, it is not a fit case for interference in the impugned order rejecting the appeal against the suspension order.

The proper course in this case is that the competent authorities should review the matter after a reasonable period say after the period of four months from today and consider whether a suspension in the instant case is fit to be revoked after taking into consideration the progress in the trial because under Regulation 29 it is the competent authority who will decide the period of suspension and the petitioner can remain under suspension during such period as the competent authority may direct.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

(Petition dismissed)