Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1876 - HC - Indian LawsEntitlement for regular salary emoluments from the day the petitioner resumes his duty - Due suspension of an employee even on the allegation of bribery can be prolonged without any departmental proceeding and such suspended employee being involved in economic crime with moral turpitude cannot be transferred to any other branch even with lesser responsibility or not - entitlement to get an order of reinstatement having regard to his enlargement of bail - HELD THAT:- The Bank in fact, has been depriving him from his right to live and other civil liberties. Such right to live is guaranteed under Article 21 and in effect a fundamental right. This right to live includes right to fair and speedy trial as has already been discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hossainara Khatoon Vs. Home Secretary State of Bihar [1979 (2) TMI 194 - SUPREME COURT] where Court even directed release of under trial prisoners where no charge-sheet has been framed. The Court also held that States financial constraints should not stand in the way to avoid this constitutional obligation. Direction was also issued for setting up new Courts, providing more staffs and equipment and appointment of additional judges. The concept of fair trial has been envisaged under article 21 which entails familiar triangulation of this interest of the accused, the victim. A fair trial is aimed at ascertaining the truth to all concerned. In a case where the appellant is accused in criminal breach of trust by taking money from someone else who has lodged a complaint against him that the accused compelled the complainant to give money to favour with an order of granting loan is a serious allegation against a bank employee and such bank employee when is faced with the criminal trial, it is expected that the criminal trial should be proceeded with without delay because until and unless such trial is over neither the allegation of the complainant could be proved nor the accused would able to prove that the allegation levelled against him are false and baseless which right pertains to his right to live guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. There is no law today to create a bar for departmental proceeding against the employee concerned on the ground that a criminal proceeding is pending against him and only after acquittal from the criminal trial he may be reinstated, does not justify prolonged suspension. Therefore, the authority has not acted bona fide in complying with the procedures prescribed under their own regulation. When the regulation becomes a complete Code the authority ought to have moved independent of the criminal prosecution and should have investigated departmentally to find out the wrong with the said employee. Having not done so the excuse shown by it that papers are not available with it to initiate departmental proceeding cannot be supported. Interference made by the impugned order against the prolonged suspension does not warrant interference in this appeal. When departmental proceeding is not contemplated at all, this cannot be the only object to place the employee under suspension and for him to be satisfied with a limited payment of his salary. This prolonged suspension is opposed to the due process of law in our constitution. Because it cannot be the public policy to abridge a person’s right ordinarily to continue with the job for which he has been engaged. If he is alleged to have committed any wrong or guilt the same itself cannot be construed a punishment. Any allegation labelled against an employee is to be enquired into by the procedure established by law or prescribed under the rules and regulations. It can be opined that criminal charges or assertion of substantial civil liability, and criminal trial is required. The employment of the employee is subject to certain limitation prescribed by the regulations. The curtailment of the employees’ rights from his right to enjoy benefits pertaining to service cannot be unlimited. If by invoking a particular provision the employee concerned is placed under suspension, the other provisions in the same regulation will automatically gets revived to be followed promptly to put an end to the proceeding and such proceeding is definitely the departmental proceeding which the authority has failed to initiate, although, he has been placed under suspension under regulation. The authority’s decision to prolong the suspension without initiation of the departmental proceeding is opposed to the due process of law emerged from the Constitution. The petitioner is entitled to get all benefit pursuant to the order impugned. Reference disposed off.
|