ORDER
Prabha Shankar Mishra, C.J.
1. Heard.
2. The instant appeal has come before us against an order, which, it seems, has been passed in rather some unfortunate situation. The impugned order shows that inspite of repeated opportunities and service of notice, the appellant failed to appear in the proceeding and pending the writ petition, interim order has been passed, the effect of which order is to put the writ petitioner – Branch Manager of the appellant-Bank in the post in which he has been put under suspension.
3. One of the settled principles of law is that when an employee is charged of any misconduct and is put under suspension under such statutory provision which apply, Courts ordinarily do not interfere as, in the event of final adjudication, the concerned employee can be fully compensated in terms of money. Any employer will have the option to put any employee, off duty. In such a case of suspension from work, however, the employee’s contract of service is not suspended. He is entitled to receive his regular and full emoluments. In the instant case unless the respondent-employee is cleared of the charges, the allegations being very serious in nature, it will be difficult for any employer to trust him and accordingly entrust works of responsibility to him. The order of the learned single Judge reads as follows :
“Counsel for the petitioner tries to make out a prima facie case for suspension of the proceedings dated 5-4-1995 by contending that the central credit card which is found to be missing has not been traced out as to who is the real person, and who is responsible for the missing of central card. It is stated that the petitioner is working as Branch Manager in Raipole Branch in Medak District. As far as the missing card pertains to Yeladurthy Branch. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel contended that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the missing of the central card. On notice being served, there is no response from the respondents. I take it granted that the respondents have no case to oppose for granting interim direction by this Court and accordingly the order dated 5-4-1995 stands suspended”.
4. No reasons, however, have been assigned for the order to suspend the order of suspension of the respondent employee by the appellant bank. The order passed by the learned single Judge is thus not a speaking order. Even in making ex parte orders care is taken to see that necessary reasons to justify the order are available. We are not able to find any reason to justify the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee has brought to out notice, however, the attitude of the appellant. He has pointed out that the appellant has not paid any salary or even suspension allowance to the respondent-employee and has shown defiance to the order of the Court until the respondent-employee has petitioned the Court that the appellant has acted in disobedience of the order of the Court. This appeal, learned counsel for the respondent employer has pointed out, has been filed only to escape the consequences of the disobedience of the order of the court. It is indeed necessary to point out that no person, even if he is convinced that the Court’s order is not legal or proper can act in disobedience of the order of the Court and even wrong orders have to be obeyed until they are reversed or set aside in accordance with law. Any attitude of defiance that the appellant might have developed for the reason, which of course will be examined in the contempt proceeding, will be properly dealt with in the contempt petition. So far the impugned order is concerned, since we have found it cannot be sustained, we have to set it aside but by setting aside the order for the reasons as above, we may be putting the respondent-employee to a hardship which may not, in the circumstances of the case, be proper. On the facts of the case, we are inclined to order that the appellant may keep, under proper orders issued in that behalf, the respondent-employee off duty but for the said reason shall not put him on suspension allowance only and accordingly treat him on duty with full pay and allowances but without assigning to him any work. If the appellant so decides, it may assign work to the respondent-employee and put him in a post not lower in rank than the post held by the respondent-employee.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed; the order of the learned single Judge is set aside and substituted by the order as above.
