- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17053 WP No. 7643 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 7643 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. KIRTI KUMAR S/O BRAJ MOHAN RAI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.310, WARRIOR TOWER, PALANAHALLI, NEAR BAGALUR CROSS, YELAHANKA OLD TOWN, BANGALORE - 560064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT CHANDERMUKHI BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, GRAND MAJESTIC MALL, GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIRANGA S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17053 WP No. 7643 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO REVOKE THE SUSPENSION OF THE PETITIONER VIDE MEMO DATED 26.07.2023 RO/BANG/HCM/DAD/2023-24/12 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to revoke his suspension from service vide order bearing No.RO/BANG/HCM/DAD/2023-2024/12 dated 26.07.2023 passed by the respondent No.2. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to post him to any branch of Central Bank of India outside Bengaluru. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to pass appropriate order to direct the respondents to release full pay to the petitioner from 27.10.2020 to 20.05.2023 after deducting the payment already made to him. 2. The petitioner contends that while he was working as a Senior Manager at RMV extension branch, Bengaluru, he - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17053 WP No. 7643 of 2024 was accused of certain misconduct. Following this, he was placed under suspension with effect from 26.07.2023. The basis for suspension was the findings of special audit of the branch at RMV extension where the petitioner was serving as a branch head from 27.10.2020 till 23.05.2023. The petitioner contends that from the date of suspension, till date the enquiry is not concluded. He has referred to a standard operating procedure for suspension and contends that the committee of General Managers constituted at the Central Office are entitled to extend or revoke the suspension and such extension shall not be for a period exceeding 180 days at a time. He contends that the respondents did not follow the aforesaid standard operating procedure and have not passed any orders till date to extend the period of suspension. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.2 on 30.01.2024 to revoke the suspension. Following this, another reminder was sent on 19.02.2024 but the petitioner did not receive any reply. He also contends that the respondents have paid 1/3rd of the salary for the first three months till October, 2023 and since November, 2023 till February, 2024 the respondents have paid ½ of the salary as subsistence allowance. He contends that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17053 WP No. 7643 of 2024 though the maximum period of suspension of 180 days is over on 26.01.2024, the suspension is neither extended nor revoked by the competent authority and therefore seeks for aforementioned reliefs. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was suspended from 26.07.2023 and till date, the enquiry is not concluded. Further, he contends that till date, there are no orders extending the suspension of the petitioner hence, the order of suspension deserves to be revoked and suitable directions be issued to the respondent No.2 to post the petitioner to any branch outside Bengaluru and also to pay the salary from 27.10.2020 till 23.05.2023. 4. The petition is opposed by the respondents who inter alia contended that the writ petition is pre-mature as disciplinary proceedings are on going. It is contended that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 26.07.2023 under Regulation 12(1)(a) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (for short 'Regulation, 1976'). Reliance is placed on Regulation 12(5) of the Regulation, 1976 to contend that the order of suspension - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17053 WP No. 7643 of 2024 made under this regulation will continue to remain in force unless it is modified or revoked by the competent authority. It is contended that the suspension of the petitioner was first reviewed on 10.10.2023 and the committee of the General Managers continued the suspension till further instructions. Thereafter, the suspension was reviewed regularly and the same was extended on various dates. It is claimed that the petitioner was paid 1/3rd salary towards his subsistence for the first three (03) months and thereafter ½ of the salary was paid to the petitioner from November, 2023 till the date of filing of statement of objections. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner cannot assail the order of suspension. 5. The learned senior counsel representing the respondents submits that the only ground urged in the writ petition is that suspension was not reviewed and extended. He contends that the documents placed on record as Ex.R7 series shows that the suspension was reviewed and extended from time to time. He also contends that the suspension was reviewed after the statement of objections was filed and the period of suspension is now extended. Therefore, he contends that the writ petition is not maintainable. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17053 WP No. 7643 of 2024 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned senior counsel for the respondents. 7. The petitioner was admittedly suspended from service on 26.07.2023. It is not in dispute that the respondents have framed articles of charge which are served on the petitioner. It is the claim of the learned Senior counsel for the respondents that the central committee of the respondents would be enquiring into the charges. He also contends that the central committee is in the process of conducting the enquiry and that it is the petitioner who has been seeking time. 8. In view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and ors. - AIR 2016 SC 101 an employee cannot be exposed to an unending ordeal of facing an enquiry. 9. The respondents are bound to conclude the enquiry as early as possible, which at any rate, should not exceed six months. Though, the respondents claim that the petitioner has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17053 WP No. 7643 of 2024 been delaying the enquiry, no material is placed on record to establish the same. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been placed under suspension for more than one and half years and the enquiry has not taken off, it is only appropriate to direct the respondents to conclude the enquiry within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. It is made clear that if the enquiry is not conducted and concluded within one month, the impugned order of suspension shall stand revoked and the respondents are at liberty to post the petitioner at any place, outside Bengaluru. 11. The writ petition is disposed off on the above terms. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3