- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7761 WP No. 21092 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.21092 OF 2024 (S-DE) BETWEEN: KAUSHIK RAM P. S/O SHRI PRAKASH RAM S., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.111, "SAI GREEN PARK LAYOUT", 1ST CROSS B BLOCK, HAROHALLI YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATARAM C.R., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BANK OF INDIA A STATUTORY BODY ESTABLISHED UNDER STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955 65, ST. MARKS ROAD, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, BENGALURU - 560 001, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENT BANK TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER IN THE SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENT WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7761 WP No. 21092 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, an employee of the respondent-State Bank of India (for short ‘SBI’) is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a direction to the respondent-Bank to reinstate the petitioner into the service of respondent with immediate effect and for a direction to conduct disciplinary proceedings in terms of Regulations of the respondent i.e., State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 (Effective from 01.01.1992) (for short ‘1992 Rules’) and for other reliefs. 2. Heard Sri. Venkataram.C.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri. T.P.Muthanna for the respondent. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner joined respondent-Bank as Junior Associate (Clerical Cadre) on 19.12.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Trainee Officer on 20.04.2020. His service was confirmed as Assistant Manager on 20.04.2022. When he was discharging his duties at Hospet Branch, on certain allegation of misconduct, the petitioner was kept under suspension by order - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7761 WP No. 21092 of 2024 dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure-D) on contemplation of enquiry. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is continued under suspension even to this date without issuing show-cause notice or charge memo in the contemplated enquiry. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner cannot be continued under suspension indefinitely and places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, to contend that without issuing charge memo and without conducting enquiry, suspended employee cannot be continued under suspension indefinitely. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. T.P.Muthanna appearing for the respondent-SBI would submit that the petitioner is kept under suspension by the respondent on certain serious lapses/irregularities in exercise of its power under Rule-68(A) of 1992 Rules. Further, learned counsel would submit that in terms of the above Rule, the suspension is continued until modified or revoked by the Authority which made the order. Thus, learned counsel would submit that in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7761 WP No. 21092 of 2024 terms of the above Rule, the petitioner’s suspension is continued but learned counsel Sri. T.P.Muthanna however admits that no enquiry is instituted by issuing charge memo to the petitioner. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to ‘Whether the respondent–SBI is justified in continuing the petitioner under suspension indefinitely without issuing charge memo?’. 6. Answer to the above point would be in the ‘Negative’ for the following reasons: The action of the respondent-SBI in continuing the petitioner under suspension is wholly unreasonable and unfair. The petitioner was kept under suspension by communication dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure-D), which would also indicate that the petitioner would be entitled for subsistence allowances during the period of suspension as provided under Rule- 68(A)(7) of 1992 Rules. It is also an admitted fact that no charge memo is issued instituting the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner is continued under - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7761 WP No. 21092 of 2024 suspension for more than 1½ years. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) at Paragraph-21 has held as follows: "21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge- sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us." 7. The observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decision is that an employee cannot be continued under suspension indefinitely. The Authorities are expected to commence departmental proceedings or enquiry within a reasonable time from the date of keeping an employee under - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7761 WP No. 21092 of 2024 suspension. Though subsistence allowance is paid to the suspended employee, it would not be in the interest of Bank to continue an employee without extracting work and to pay subsistence allowance. If the charges are serious against such suspended employee, in the interest of Bank, the Bank to reinstate him and give posting to such employee which would not involve any financial transaction. 8. In the instant case, though the communication of suspension states that serious lapses/irregularities are alleged against the petitioner, it would not indicate the seriousness of the lapses or irregularities. 9. Though the Bank is empowered under Rule- 68(A)(5)(a) of 1992 Rules, to continue the petitioner under suspension until its order is modified or revoked, the same cannot be for indefinite period. If the Authorities issue charge memo, depending on the nature and gravity of charge, the employer could take a decision as to whether the suspension requires continuation or be reinstated. But when the respondent or employer fails to initiate enquiry by issuing charge memo, indefinite suspension of the employee cannot be - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7761 WP No. 21092 of 2024 continued. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13541/2023 disposed of on 27.09.2023 in the case of same respondent-Bank, though the charge memo was issued, on the ground of continuation of suspension indefinitely, quashed the order of suspension. 10. For the reasons recorded above, writ petition is allowed; the respondent-SBI is directed to revoke the order of suspension of the petitioner and reinstate the petitioner keeping in mind the observations made above. The above direction to revoke the order of suspension would not come in the way of issuing charge memo and to continue the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Time for compliance: 30 days from today. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53