THE MANAGEMENT OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, NEW DELHI versus SHRI BHOPAL SINGH PANCHAL

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 586 · Decided: 03-11-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
·D 
THE MANAGEMENT OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, 
NEW DELHI 
v. 
SHRI BHOPAL SINGH PANCHAL 
NOVEMBER 3, 1993. 
[P.B. SAWANT, S. MOHAN AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
Service Law 
Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulation, 1948: Regulations 39, 39(2), 
46, 46( 1) to 46( 5), 47 and 47( 1 )-Suspension of employee on being arrested 
on criminal charge-Employee dismissed on conviction by trial court but ac-
quitted by High Court giving benefit of doub~Subsequently reinstated on 
award by Industrial Tribunal-Period of absence from duty between suspt:,n-
sion and dismissal-Whether to be treated as absence on account of cir-
cumstances beyond controf-Employee's entitlement to pay and allowances--
Applicability of the principle 'No work,· no pay'. 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1948: Section 33-C(2)--Dispute regarding pay 
E and allowances for the period betwen date of suspension and dismissal of 
an employee-Whether Labour Court has jurisdiction to decide the question. 
The respondent was employed with the appellant-Bank. On 7th 
September 1974 a criminal case was registered against him under section 
302, IPC and he was arrested on 18th September, 1974. Consequently, the 
, p 
appellant-Bank placed the respondent-employee under suspension under 
Regulation 46(1) of the Reserve Bank of lndla(StatT) Regulations, 1948. 
Subsequently, the employee was convicted by the Sessions Court for the 
otrence under Section 304, Part I of the IPC and sentenced to 8 years' 
rigorous Imprisonment. On receipt of the court's judgment, the appellant· 
0 . Bank dismissed the respondent-employee from service w.e.f. 28th April, 
1977 In terms of Regulation 46(3). 
· 
On appeal, the High Court acquitted the respondent-employee, 
giving him the benefit of doubt. Relying on Regulation 46(4) the appellant· 
Bank refused to reinstate the employee on the ground that he had not 
H earned an honourble acquittal. 
586 
R.B.I. v. BHOPAL SINGH 
587 
The respondent-employee, raised an industrial dispute. The A 
Tribunal. held that Regulation 46(4) was invalid and improper and 
militated against the industrial jurisprudence, and that the dismissal was 
unjustified, and ordered the appellant-Bank to reinstate the respondent-
employee with full back wages and to allow him continuity in service as if 
he was never dismissed from service. By its order dated 24th August 1983, B 
the appellant-Bank reinstated the respondent-employee in service and 
treated bim as on duty during the period from ·28th April, 1977 the date 
of dismissal to 23rd August, 1983, the date of reinstatement and paid him 
admissible back wages for that period. The employee filed an application 
before the Central Government Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act claiming the difference between subsistence al-
C 
lowance during the period of suspension from 18th September, 1974 till 
the date of his dismissal and full pay and allowances which, were payable 
for the said period. He further claimed that he was also entitled to 
increments during the period he was under suspension. The Labour Court 
upheld the claim of the employee. 
D 
Aggrieved, the appellant-Bank preferred the appeal before this 
Court. 
On the questions whether the order of suspension was automatically 
set aside on reinstatement and whether the management could not deal E 
with the period of suspension according to the Regulations governing the 
service conditions. Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : 1.1 An analysis of the relevant provisions of the Reserve 
Bank of India (Staff) Regulation, 1948 viz., Regulations 39, 46 and 47, 
shows the employee who is absent from duty on account of his arrest for 
debt or on a criminal charge or on account of his detention, is not to be 
considered to be absent on account of circumstances beyond his control. 
His absence throughout such period is to be treatea a,s period spent on 
extra-ordinary leave when the absence is not followed by discharge, ter-
mination of service or dismissal, as the case may be. [596-A-B] 
F 
G 
1.2 The regulations read together, leave no manner of doubt that in 
case of an employee who is arrested for an offence, his period of absence 
from duty is to be treated as not being beyond circumstances under his 
control. In such circumstances, when he is treated as being under suspen-
sion during the said period, he is entitled to subsistence allowance. How- H 
588 
SUPRE?y{E COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A ever, the subsistence allow

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.