Suspension period treated as duty for benefits must be counted as regular service for promotional eligibility.

The petitioner was appointed as a Banking Associate on a contractual basis in 2013 and regularized on 17.12.2018

In October 2018, he was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings. The inquiry resulted in a minor penalty: withholding one future increment for six months

Upon reinstatement on 20.12.2019, the Bank ordered that his suspension period would not be treated as time "spent on duty" but would qualify for leaves, increments, and retirement benefits

In 2023, the Respondent-Bank initiated promotions for the Assistant Manager cadre, requiring seven years of "regular service"

The Bank excluded the petitioner’s suspension period from his total service, rendering him ineligible under the Seniority-cum-Normal Channel

1. Whether the period of suspension can be excluded from "regular service" for promotion eligibility when the Disciplinary Authority has already directed that said period qualifies for increments and retirement benefits

The Court primarily applied Rule 90(b) of the J Bank Officers Service Manual, 2000, which empowers the competent authority to treat suspension periods as duty for specific purposes (pension, increments, leave) in cases where an employee is not fully exonerated

The Court relied on the principle that excluding such a period from seniority after reinstatement constitutes a "break in service" leading to evil consequences

The Court further applied precedents from the Rajasthan High Court in Brij Lal Bundel v. State of Rajasthan and the Delhi High Court in Vinod Kumar v. G.N.C.T. of Delhi, establishing that suspension periods treated as "not spent on duty" should be construed as such only for back wages, not for seniority or promotion eligibility

The Court reasoned that Rule 90(b) allows the Disciplinary Authority to define the treatment of suspension periods. Since the order dated 20.12.2019 specifically allowed the period to qualify for increments and retirement benefits, the Bank’s attempt to "write off" this period from the petitioner’s regular service was contradictory and lacked legal logic

The Court observed that depriving an employee of seniority and promotion eligibility for a period already counted for increments would amount to imposing a "second punishment" without due process

By applying the ratio in Vinod Kumar, the Court held that the phrase "not spent on duty" in this context must be restricted to the denial of back wages (principle of "no work, no pay") and cannot impede career advancement or seniority

Furthermore, the Court noted that there were sufficient vacancies in the promotion quota, negating the Bank’s merit-based rejection

It directed that the order dated 20.12.2019 be construed to count the suspension period for seniority while treating it as "not on duty" solely for back wages. The Court declared the petitioner eligible for the Assistant Manager promotion process and directed the respondents to consider his case; if found fit, he is to be promoted retrospectively from the date his immediate junior was promoted