The Supreme Court has delivered a significant judgment in the case of U.P. Singh vs Punjab National Bank, setting a legal precedent that employees remain bound by organisational rules even while suspended. This decision challenges the misconception that suspension grants automatic immunity from disciplinary procedures.
The appellant, Singh, was suspended in 1982 for misconduct and subsequently directed to report to a different branch after an inquiry upheld the allegations. He refused the transfer, citing distance, and remained absent for 90 days. The bank, invoking its regulations, deemed him to have voluntarily retired.
Singh challenged this decision, arguing that bank rules were inapplicable during suspension. However, the Supreme Court dismissed his claim, emphasising that suspension does not dissolve the employer-employee relationship. Organisational rules, therefore, continue to apply, and employees cannot unilaterally disregard them.
The court found Singh’s conduct unreasonable and upheld the bank’s action, concluding that his extended absence amounted to voluntary retirement. This judgment emphasises the importance of accountability and adherence to regulations even during disciplinary proceedings.
This verdict has wider implications. It clarifies the legal stance on employee conduct during suspension, striking a balance between employee rights and managerial prerogatives. The previous narrative often favoured employees, portraying management as the antagonist. This ruling, however, underscores the importance of responsible employee conduct and the consequences of disregarding organisational rules, even during suspension.