Partly allowed

Secretary,Sundargarh District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd. v. Sankar Pruseth

Orissa HC2 Aug 2017WP(C)/21269/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court modified an impugned order directing a bank to pay salary and benefits to an employee reinstated after suspension. The court held that payment and work-out of the suspension period should be the responsibility of the bank branch where the employee was suspended.

What did the court decide?

The court directed the petitioner bank branch where the employee was suspended to treat the employee as continuing in service from the date of joining report submission and to pay all salary and benef

Admittedly, the order at Annexure-1 is assailed in the writ petition assailing t he directive part particularly directing the present petitioner to make the payment of salary and other entitlements to the opposite party no.1.

Drawing the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Registrar in Di spute Case No.126 of 2007, Sri Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the opposite party no.1 was suspended while serving under the S.D.C.C. Bank, Hemgiri Branch and for interference in the suspension further directing for restoration of service of the opposite party no.1 with entitlement of his arrears, the direction so far as entitlement of ar rear and other entitlements as against the present petitioners is not appropriate.

Learned counsel appearing for the private opposite party no.1 referring to th e order passed by the Registrar and the award involved herein submitted that for no challenge to the order passed in Dispute Case No.126 of 2007, there is no dispute with regard to reinsta tement of the opposite party no.1 and the release of salary and other entitlements.

On the direction of this Court, Sri Nanda, learned counsel for the petiti oners produced the case record in Court today. From perusal of the Order No.1820 dated 24.4.20 01, this Court finds though the opposite party no.1 was a cadre staff of Laikera Branch but du ring suspension, he was working as Recovery Officer of the S.D.C.C. Bank, Hemgir Branch. Furt her, perusal of charges it is also observed that petitioner faced disciplinary proceeding invo lving alleged serious irregularities such as misappropriation of society fund, manipulation etc. during his period of service in Lephripara LAMPCS. From the orders passed by the Revis ional authority and the Tribunal involved herein, this Court finds the opposite party no.1 has been directed to be reinstated after absolving him from charges but however, from the order p assed by the Revisional authority under Annexure-3, this Court finds while directing for accep ting the joining of the defendant therein and the opposite party no.1 herein, the Registrar ha s directed the defendant-Bank to accept the joining of the defendant therein with further spec ific direction that the period from 13.12.2005 till he joins will be treated as leave but will be counted towards service benefit and increments. The direction of the Registrar is assaile d in T.A.No. 37 of 2013 by the Secretary, Sundargarh District Co-operative Bank Ltd and the Branch Manager, Sundargarh District Central Co-operative Bank ltd., Hemgiri Branch resulting i n the impugned direction.

Assailing the impugned order, Sri Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the pe titioners contended that though the petitioner was suspended while working at S.D.C.C. Bank, Hemgir Branch but for involvement of charges involving Lephripara Branch LAMPCS, direction fo r reinstatement etc. ought to have been in Lephripara LAMPCS. Sri Nanda, learned counsel acc ordingly claimed that direction for reinstatement and payment as against the petitioner-1 Bank is illegal and this Court should interfere in the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing f or the opposite party no.1 on the other hand submitted that in the revision, both the Branch M anager as well as Secretary were made party and for the confusion in the directive portion d irecting the defendant-Bank to work in the manner directed therein, there may be some confusio n in the directive part and submitted that there remains no doubt that the opposite party no.1 is not only entitled to reinstatement but also entitled to the dues as admissible following the direction in the revision.

Considering the rival contention of the parties and on perusal of the order at Annexure-3, this Court finds the opposite party no.1 was admittedly suspended while workin g as Recovery Officer in S.D.C.C. Bank, Hemgir Branch where he was working on deputation. The suspension order also clearly establishes the same. For the direction in the revision and fo r no dispute by any of the parties for reinstatement of the opposite party no.1 except a chall enge to the extent as to who is to work out the order involved herein, this Court finds the op posite party no.1 being suspended while working in S.D.C.C. Bank, Hemgir Branch, the direction in the Dispute Case No.126 of 2007 will be treated as a direction to the defendant no.3 there in in the Dispute Case No.126 of 2007, the employer at the time of suspension of opposite part y no.1 and the petitioner no.2 herein. Now, looking to the challenge to the direction in Anne xure-1, this Court though declines to interfere in the direction so far it relates to joining of the opposite party no.1 and his entitlements, as directed in the dispute case but for the direction in paragraph-15 of the Case No.T.A.37 of 2013, so far the joining of the opposite pa rty no.1 and salary with other benefits for the suspension period will all be confined to the petitioner no.2 herein i.e. the appellant no.2 in the Case No.T.A.37 of 2013 and defendant no .3 in the Dispute Case No.126 of 2007. Considering that there is much delay in release of the amount in favour of the opposite party no.1 further, unnecessary disallowing the opposite par

ty no.1 from joining pursuant to direction by the Registrar, this Court directs the opposite party no.1 will be treated to be continuing in the petitioner no.2 Branch since the date of submission of his joining report and which also be entitled to salary and other benefits all through considering that the opposite party no.1 is suffering for no fault of him. This Cour t further directs the order involving Dispute Case will also be worked out by the petitioner no.2 within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of but with the modification of the order at Annexures-3 and 1 to the extent indicated hereinabove. Issue urgent certified copy of this order on proper application. .

Secretary,Sundargarh District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd. v. Sankar Pruseth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Secretary,Sundargarh District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd. v. Sankar Pruseth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Danon Vs State

Sri Sri Patitapaban Dev Bije Panas Patna Vs Damodar Sahu

Purna Chandra Mishra Vs State of Orissa

Achutananda Srichand Vs Collector,Khurda

B.v.v.S.Vizaya Kumar Vs State

Smt.Pratima Khatei Vs State and Ors.