IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5766 of 2011 RAMESHWAR SINGH, S/O LATE RAM NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF RAM NARAYAN SADAN, P.O. MOTIHARI, TOWN P.S. MOTIHARI, DIST EAST CHAMPARAN----------------------------------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2.THE MOTIHARI CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANK ROAD, BHAWANIPUR ZIRAT, MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN 3.MANAGING DIRECTOR, MOTIHARI CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. BANK ROAD, BHAWANIPUR ZIRAT MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN -----RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Ram Janam Prasad, Advocate For the State :Mr.P.K.Verma, AAG V & Mr.Mankeshwar Tiwari, AC to AAG V ----- 2. 31.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.K.Verma, learned AAG V for the respondents. The petitioner seeks quashing of the office order No. 537 dated 30.12.2010 (Annexure-7) by which he has been placed under suspension. While the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager of the Dhaka Branch of the Motihari Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. certain irregularities in sanction of loans under Kishan Credit Card Scheme during the said period were noted. The Managing Director of the Bank, who is also the District Co-operative Officer requested the Assistant Registrar to make an enquiry and report. On the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Assistant Registrar through 2 his two subordinate officers a report dated 3.11.2010 has been submitted before the Managing Director-cum-District Co-operative Officer. The petitioner was issued show cause notice on 11.11.2010 along with copy of the said enquiry report to file reply to the same within seven days as to why further action against him should not be taken against him. The petitioner, who was then posted at headquarters itself, has replied only by letter dated 14.12.2010 praying for more time to file his reply. The matter was placed before the Board of Directors of the Bank at its meeting held on 14.12.2010 in which on a consideration of the preliminary enquiry report dated 3.11.2010 as also the fact that the petitioner had not filed his reply to the show cause issued to him took a decision that the petitioner should be placed under suspension and departmental proceeding should be initiated against him as the charges are, prima facie, made out against him. It was also decided to make further enquiry on the basis of the explanation received from other employees and if necessary after making further enquiry to file FIRs in the matter. 3 Pursuant to the said Resolution of the Board of Directors the impugned order dated 30.12.2010 was issued by the Managing Director of the Bank placing the petitioner under suspension in terms of the provisions of the Staff Regulation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Assistant Registrar not being an employee of the Bank is not competent to make an enquiry and no action can be taken against the petitioner on the basis of such enquiry report. It is further submitted by learned counsel that even the Assistant Registrar had not conducted the enquiry but the same was done through his subordinate officers. It is lastly contended by learned counsel that from the said enquiry report it appears that allegations were made against several persons but the petitioner alone has been selectively punished by placing him under suspension, which is not permissible. In support of the same, learned counsel relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.Sukhendar Reddy vs. State of A.P. and another : (1999) 6 SCC 257, in paragraphs 7 & 8 of which it has been held as follows : “7. Another vital fact which has come on record is that in the criminal case a number of 4 senior IAS officers, even senior to the appellant, may be found involved, but nothing positive or definite can be said as yet as the investigation is likely to take time. The matter is pending with the police since 1.2.1996 when the FIR was lodged at Anakapalli Town Police Station. The investigation has not been completed although about two-and-a-half years have passed. We do not know how long it will take to complete the investigation. That being so, the officer of the rank of the appellant, against whom it has now come out that the disciplinary proceedings are not contemplated, cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period, particularly in a situation where many more senior officers may ultimately be found involved, but the appellant alone has been placed under suspension. The Government cannot be permitted to resort to selective suspension. It cannot be permitted to place an officer under suspension just to exhibit and feign that action against the officers, irrespective of their high status in the service hierarchy, would be taken. 8. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the suspension order dated 12.3.1997 with the direction that the appellant shall be put back to duty and shall be paid all his arrears of salary up to date minus the suspension allowance, if any, already paid to him, leaving it open to the State Government to consider the feasibility of placing the appellant under suspension, if and when a charge-sheet is filed by CID.” So far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Regulation 23(V) is concerned, the same provides procedure for imposing major punishment whereas the petitioner has only been placed under 5 suspension in contemplation of initiation of departmental proceeding against him. Hence, the reliance placed by learned counsel on the said Regulation is of no consequence. It is open to the employer to act on the basis of any preliminary enquiry that may have been conducted by an officer of any rank and the said enquiries are only meant for the employer to come to the conclusion in the matter whether it is a fit case for proceeding with a regular departmental proceeding. Hence, the reliance by the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank on the report of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies for acting against the petitioner by placing him under suspension in contemplation of department enquiry does not suffer from any illegality. So far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the case of K. Sukhendar Reddy (supra) is concerned, the same appears to be wholly misconceived. In that case the clear finding of the Apex Court was that no disciplinary enquiry was contemplated and only on the basis of the FIR lodged in the matter action was taken against the appellant of that case. It was further found that the allegations in the FIR were against a large number of 6 officers, many of whom were much senior to the appellant, but no action was being taken against them. In the said circumstances, it was held that the action of the Government amounted to selective suspension which it cannot be permitted to resort. That is not the position in the present matter. The petitioner was head of the Branch in question and there is no question of involvement of any person above him in the said Bank. Moreover, it is evident from the proceedings of the Board of Directors held on 14.12.2010 that further enquiries have been ordered and show cause has been issued to lodge FIR against other employees, who have been found involved in the matter. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/