Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010172802024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4333/2024 RAMESH JARADHARA S/O- SRI KAMESWAR JARADHARA, RESIDENT OF BARPATORIA VILLAGE, WARD NO. 1, P.N.G.B. NEAR DHEMAJI GIRLS COLLEGE, P.O.- DHEMAJI- ASSAM- 787057. VERSUS ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK AND 2 ORS HEAD OFFICE, G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE CHAIRMAN ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 781006 Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. R SARMAH, MS P SAHA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, A G V B, Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 19.02.2026 Heard Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A Ganguly, learned standing counsel, A.G.V.B, Assam, appearing for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner, in the present proceedings, has raised a grievance, with regard to the non-regularization of his period of suspension for about 19 (Nineteen) months after the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him had culminated with imposition of a penalty upon him. 3. The petitioner, while being posted as Manager, Operations at the Sivasagar Branch of the respondent Bank, was alleged to have committed a misconduct and accordingly, basing on such allegations, the petitioner came to be placed under suspension vide an order dated 23.08.2012. Thereafter, the departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner, basing on an allegation of having misappropriated an amount of Rs. 6241/- (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Forty One Only). On conclusion of the said departmental proceeding, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, vide an order dated 25.03.2014, proceeded to impose upon him, a penalty of “reduction of basic pay by 2(two) stages with cumulative effect”. Thereafter, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked, vide order dated 25.03.2014. The petitioner being aggrieved by the imposition of the said penalty, assailed the same by way of instituting a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 5826/2014. A coordinate Bench of this Court, vide an order dated 01.08.2024, proceeded to dispose of the said Writ Petition by interfering with the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner to the extent of the same being imposed with cumulative effect. A coordinate Bench of this Court, vide the said judgment and order Page No.# 3/8 dated 01.08.2024, modified the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner to that of “Reduction of the Basic pay by 2 (two) stages”. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, while considering the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner, had, however, not made any observation, with regard to the manner in which the period of suspension of the petitioner is to be reckoned. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the respondent authorities for regularization of his period of suspension by relying on the provisions of Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 48 of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. The said approach of the petitioner, having not evoked any response from the respondents, the petitioner has instituted the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts as noticed hereinabove, has submitted that Regulation 48 of the said Regulations of 2010, mandates the manner in which the period of suspension of an employee, who is subjected to a disciplinary proceeding, is to be reckoned. He submits that the respondent authorities, in terms of the Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 48, is to pass an order with regard to the manner in which the period of suspension is to be so reckoned while imposing the penalty upon the petitioner, on conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding instituted against him. Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order, passed by the disciplinary authority, imposing the penalty upon the petitioner, does not deal with the period of suspension undergone by the petitioner, herein. Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the provisions of Sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 48, submits that on conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding against a member of the service, a penalty of removal from service or dismissal of service is not imposed, the period of suspension undergone by the person has deemed to be spent on duty or otherwise, as the competent authority may direct. Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the express provisions of Sub-regulation (2) of Page No.# 4/8 Regulation 48, the petitioner herein, having not been imposed with a penalty of removal or of dismissal from service, and the penalty now being that of only reduction of basic pay by 2 (two) stages, he is required to be released his salaries for the period he was under suspension. Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had, on reaching the age of superannuation, retired from his services. 5. Mr. A Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset, has submitted that the present Writ Petition is hit by the principle of res judicata, in as much as in the earlier round of litigation in the proceedings in WP(C)/5846/2014, the petitioner had not raised any plea, with regard to the non-regularization of his period of suspension. Mr. A Ganguly, learned counsel has further submitted that even if it is held that the disciplinary authority, while passing the final order instituted against the petitioner, was also required to pass an order with regard to the manner in which the period of suspension is now to be regulated, he submits that such order would be permissible to be passed by the disciplinary authority even at this stage and accordingly, prays that this Court would be placed to remand back the matter to the disciplinary authority for passing appropriate orders in this connection by following the provisions of Regulation 48 of the said Regulations of 2010. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. The facts noticed hereinabove, are not disputed by the parties. The petitioner, on conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding instituted against him, was imposed with a penalty of “reduction of basic pay by 2(two) stages with cumulative effect”. The said penalty, as imposed upon the petitioner, on being assailed by him before this Court by way of instituting WP(C) No. 5846/2014, a coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 01.08.2024 had proceeded to draw the following conclusions : “13.This brings us to the aspect of the proportionality of the penalty Page No.# 5/8 Imposed. The penalty is reduction of basic pay by two stages with cumulative effect. The allegation against the petitioner is to utilize the amount of three unclaimed cheques, total of which is Rs. 6241/-. It has been emphasized by Dr. Sarmah, learned counsel that ultimately, the amounts of the chegues were not utilized and the construction of the shed was done by the funds of the petitioner. That by itself will not totally absolve the petitioner of his liability as the bank officer. At the same time, this Court has noticed that while the penalty of reduction of basic pay by 2 (two) stages has been imposed, the same has been given cumulative effect. In the penalties prescribed under Regulation 39, a reduction to a lower stage in Time Scale of Pay for a period not exceeding 2 years without cumulative effect is one of the minor penalties along with others. In this context, one may refer to the concurring judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice BL Hansaria in the case of BC Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749. In the said judgment, the powers conferred upon a High Court by Article 226 have been compared with Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has been observed that when a Tribunal can be vested with powers to impose any lesser punishment, it would not be unreasonable, if such powers can be deemed to be within the powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Considering the facts and circumstances and also the aspect that the attempt to utilize the unclaimed money of Rs. 6241/- was in the interest of the Bank and its customers and not for any personal gain and there is no allegation of any misappropriation, this Court while not Interfering with the procedure adopted and reaching the conclusion to impose the penalty, directs that said penalty be altered to the penalty of reduction of basic pay itout cumulative effect. Since the petitioner has been stated to have been superannuated in the meantime, It is directed that on the alteration of the said penalty, as indicated above, the pension of the petitioner and other retirement benefits be fixed at the proper fitment by making the calculations by the Bank. 8. A perusal of the said conclusions drawn by this Court, would reveal that this Court had modified the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner to the extent the penalty was imposed with cumulative effect. Accordingly, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner after the interference made by, thereof, by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 01.08.2024 would now read as “Reduction of Basic pay by 2 (two) stages without cumulative effect”. 9. It is seen that in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner had not raised any plea with regard to the non-regularization of his period of suspension. It is in this background that the learned counsel for the respondent Bank had taken the plea of res judicata, in instituting the present Writ Petition praying for regularization of the said period of suspension. 10. This Court has considered the submission made by the parties to proceed on the said issue. An order of suspension precedes a disciplinary Page No.# 6/8 enquiry and an order of suspension, as settled by the decisions of the Hon’ble Court, is not in the nature of a penalty. A person is suspended so as to facilitate collection of evidences against him for the purpose of initiation of a departmental proceeding and also to ensure that the delinquent is not in a position to either tamper with the records or manipulate the witnesses. That is the only intent of an order of suspension. The disciplinary proceedings on being concluded, in the event the delinquent is found not to be blame-worthy of the allegations leveled against him, the suspension, as ordered in respect of such a delinquent, would become unjustified and accordingly, the period of suspension would be required to be regularized as on duty along with release of his salaries for the said period. However, the regularization of the period of suspension, when a delinquent employee is found to be blame-worthy, would require a consideration by the disciplinary authorities and it is stipulated in the services rules governing the services of such delinquent, that while passing the final order imposing the penalty upon the delinquent, the disciplinary authority, by appreciating the allegations leveled against the petitioner; the allegation established against him and the nature of the penalty imposed, proceed to pass appropriate orders regulating the period of suspension undergone by such delinquents. 11. The petitioner is an employee of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and his service conditions are regulated by the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers’ and Employees’) Service Regulations, 2010. In so far as the treatment of the period of suspension is concerned, the same is governed by the provisions of Regulation 48 of the said Regulations of 2010. Regulation 48 of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow : “48. Treatment of suspension period and allied matters. – (1) The Competent Authority may, while imposing penalty, direct whether the officer or employee shall be paid the difference between the subsistence allowance and the emoluments which he would have received but for such suspension or the period he was under suspension and that, if the Competent Authority decides otherwise, no order shall be passed which shall have the effect of compelling the officer or employee to refund such subsistence allowance. (2) The period during which an officer or employee is under suspension shall, if he is not removed or dismissed from the service, be treated as period spent on duty or otherwise as the Competent Authority may direct.” 12. A perusal of the provisions of the Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 48, makes it apparent that the disciplinary authority, while imposing penalty may direct whether the Officer or employee concerned is to be paid the difference between subsistence allowance and the emoluments which he would have otherwise received, for such period he was under suspension. It Page No.# 7/8 further stipulates that if the disciplinary authority decides otherwise, no order shall be passed which shall have the effect of compelling the Office and employee to refund such suspension allowance already drawn by him. Accordingly, the stipulation as made Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 48 is that the disciplinary authority is mandated to regulate the period of suspension in the manner as may be deemed fit and proper by it, upon conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against such delinquent. Sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 48 further stipulates that the period during which an employee is under suspension, if such employee, on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him is not imposed with a penalty of removal or dismissal from service, the period of suspension, undergone by such delinquent, may be treated as on duty or otherwise as the competent authority made direct. 13. Accordingly, it is the discretion of the disciplinary authority, to arrive at a conclusion, in the facts and circumstances of the given case as, to whether the period of suspension undergone by the delinquent concerned is to be regularized as on duty with all consequential benefits or pass other orders, either reducing the salary component receivable by such delinquent during the period of suspension or limiting it to the subsistence allowance already drawn by the delinquent employee. 14. In the case on hand, it is seen that although the petitioner on conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding instituted against him was imposed with a penalty, the disciplinary authority had not passed any order with regard to the manner in which the period of suspension of the petitioner is now required to be regulated. Given the express provisions Regulation 48, this Court is of the considered view that a decision, in this connection must mandatorily, at the first instance, be taken by the competent authority/disciplinary authority of the bank. Accordingly, the competent authority/disciplinary authority of the petitioner is directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 48, Page No.# 8/8 regulating the period of suspension undergone by the petitioner. 15. The competent authority, while regulating such period of suspension undergone by the petitioner, shall appreciate the allegations leveled against him, the materials brought on record towards establishing such allegations in the enquiry, as well as the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, and thereafter, on a wholesome consideration of the said parameters would arrive at a decision with regard to the manner in which the period of suspension of the petitioner is now required to be so regulated. The said decision, as arrived at in the matter be communicated to the petitioner in the form of a speaking order within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 16. In the event, the competent authority/ disciplinary authority of the Bank is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the full salaries for the period of his suspension and/or only a part, thereof, the arrears, if any, working out after deducting the subsistence allowance already drawn by the petitioner, be released to the petitioner, along with the said speaking order, now required to be passed by the competent authority/ disciplinary authority. 17. With the above observations, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant