HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25912 OF 2010 Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Andhra Bank in the year 1981. He was promoted as Assistant Manager in 1986 and posted as Branch Manager on 29-05-2007 at Laxmapur of Nizamabad District. He was served with a charge memo on 24-06-2010 alleging that he did not handle to process the loan applications in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 13-07-2010 and the departmental proceedings are pending. Through proceedings dated 28-09-2010, the Assistant General Manager, 2nd respondent herein, placed the petitioner under suspension. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Petitioner contends that an enquiry into the processing of loan applications that took place in the year 1987 is already pending and he was even transferred from Laxmapur to Tandur in Adilabad District. He submits that there was absolutely no justification for the respondents in placing him under suspension. 3. Respondents filed counter affidavit. According to them, a trap was laid by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘CBI’) against the Cashier in Laxmapur Branch of which the petitioner was the Manager and in the complaint made by one of the customers and in the statement of the Cashier, it was stated that the money was demanded by the petitioner and was paid to the Cashier. The respondents further stated that the petitioner was in judicial custody on 14th and 15th of June 2010, but he did not bring this to the notice of the respondents. It is further stated that in an application filed for sanction of leave from 10th to 19th June, 2010, petitioner did not mention about the factum of his arrest. Reference is also made to an observation made by this Court in W.P. No.6677 of 2010 filed by the Cashier. 4. Petitioner filed a reply stating that the interrogation by the police and the consequential arrest were within the knowledge of the then Branch Manager, where he was working and though not in specific terms, he mentioned about the arrest in the leave application. 5. Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suspension pending enquiry into the acts of misconduct is resorted to, when there is likelihood of the employee influencing the witnesses or meddling with the enquiry and that in the instant case, the petitioner was transferred almost, as a punitive measure, in the year 2008 itself. He submits that the Cashier was caught red-handed and statement of such a person implicating the petitioner cannot be taken on its face value. 6. Dr. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in a complaint submitted to CBI, one of the customers made a specific allegation against the petitioner that it is he who demanded the amount. Learned counsel further submits that this Court took exception to the action of the Bank in suspending the Cashier and leaving the petitioner untouched. 7. Petitioner challenges the order of suspension pending enquiry, it is only when a strong case exists in terms of law, or on facts, that such orders would be interfered. Petitioner does not allege that the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity. Much attention is focused on the factual aspect. It may be true that the incident into which the departmental enquiry is being conducted, took place in the year 2007 and the petitioner was issued with the charge sheet sometime in June, 2010. From this, it is suggested that at no point of time, the Administration felt that the petitioner must be placed under suspension. 8. However, there are certain important aspects, which cannot be ignored. The first is that in relation to a trap laid by the CBI, the Cashier was caught red-handed with certain amount. The Cashier as well as the complainant stated that the actual demand for illegal gratification was made by the petitioner. When the Cashier was suspended on that account, there cannot be any justification in sparing the petitioner. The second is that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the investigation into certain criminal acts, referable to his service, on 14-06-2010. Being an employee of the Bank, the petitioner was under obligation to inform this, to the respondents, at least after he was enlarged on bail. He has not chosen to do so. Failure on the part of the petitioner to inform the Bank would certainly provide a justification for the administration to keep the petitioner under suspension. 9. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The respondents shall expedite the departmental enquiry instituted against the petitioner and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 01, 2010. Note: Furnish CC in one week. B/O KTL