Thanks for the feedback. The employee is a workman not a supervisor. He was employed in a public sector bank where well defined rules of disciplinary procedure is there. Suspension, subsistence allowance, disciplinary action are well defined. But the rule is silent on leaving Head Quarters without the permission of Bank. In this connection, please refer to following judgments on LAW point
W.B.Khadi and Village Industries Board V. Dibyender Bhattacharya (1980) 3 SLR Calcutta 136 wherein it has been held that suspension order restraining employee from leaving station/Head Quarters during suspension period without permission is illegal.
See also B.B.C.I railway V. B.C.Patel 1951 II LLJ 584 (BOMBAY HC)
I am aware of rules in many PSU/Govt departments, the format prescribed for suspnsion contains wordings similar to this and rules/circular cannot overrule LAW. The point was legally discussed, decided and in case PSU/GOVT PRESCRIBES, the rule itself can be challenged.
Coming to the advise sought, challenging suspension order alone as invalid - dispute is definite remedy.
Whether 33C2, lies? If any existing right is infringed under a settlement 33c2 operates. But my question is when a Legal position is violated in labour matters where monetary claim arises, whether 33C2 comes into picture or not?
Writ may not be a remedy as many High Courts direct the workmen to seek remedy under special Law namely ID act.
For this purpose, gravity of misconduct is immaterial. Gravity of misconduct does not and cannot decide the legality of suspension order excepting very minor issue. Both operate under different arena.