THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14896 OF 2009 Dated: 10.11.2009 Between: T. Bhanoji Rao … Petitioner And 1. Cotton Corporation of India Limited, Head Office: Navi Mumbai, Mumbai, rep. By its Chairman-cum- Managing Director and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14896 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner herein is working as General Manager of the 1st respondent Corporation. It is not in dispute that the criminal proceedings are initiated against the petitioner and the same are pending before the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam vide C.C.No.13 of 2008. The 1st respondent, by order, dated 28.7.2008, placed the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 20 (i) (b) of the Cotton Corporation of India Limited (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record as well as the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is not in dispute that as per Rule 20 (i) of the Cotton Corporation of India Limited (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 (for short, ‘the Rules’), the 1st respondent is competent to place the employee under suspension under the circumstances specified therein. The said rule to the extent, it is necessary, runs as under : Rule 20 : Suspension: (i) The Appointing Authority or any Authority to which it is subordinate or the Disciplinary Authority or any other Authority empowered in that behalf by the Management/Competent Authority by general or special order may place an employee under suspension: (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. (ii) An employee who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of determination, by an order of the Appointing Authority, and shall remain under suspension until further orders. (iii) Where a penalty of dismissal or removal from service imposed upon an employee under suspension is set aside on appeal or on review under these rules, and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action nor with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal and shall remain in force until further orders. (iv) Where a penalty of dismissal or removal from service imposed upon an employee is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence or by a decision of court of law and the Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal or removal was originally imposed to have been place under suspension by the Appointing Authority from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. (v) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule at any time be revoked by the Authority which made or is deemed to have made the order by any Authority to which that Authority is subordinate. As could be seen, Rule 20 (i)(b) empowers the 1st respondent to place the employee under suspension where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. Admittedly this is a case where the criminal case against the petitioner is under trial. However the learned Counsel for the petitioner while pointing out that the 1st respondent has never chosen to place the petitioner under suspension during the investigation, vehemently contended that the impugned order of suspension while the matter is under trial is unwarranted and unjustified particularly without assigning any reasons therefor. As could be seen from the material on record, serious allegations are made against the petitioner and both disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal proceedings vide C.C.No.13 of 2008 are pending. The impugned suspension is not on the ground of allegations upon which the criminal proceedings are initiated and pending against the petitioner but it is on the ground that a case in respect of criminal offence against the petitioner is under trial. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the said ground is permissible under Rule 20 (i) (b) of the Rules. Since admittedly the trial in the criminal case against the petitioner is under progress, the power exercised by the 1st respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal and therefore the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 10.11.2009 gbs