IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 2368 of 2009 Between: K. Karunakumar S/o. Krupa Rao R/o. D.No. 64-10-7, Star House, Mallayyapeta Rajahmundry, E.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Bank of India, Rep. by its Chairman Star House , C-5, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 2 K.L. Jagdish Pai, General Manager (HR) & Disciplinary Authority,. Star House , C-5, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 3 Zonal Manager, Bank of India Kisan Bhavan, Ramnagar, Opp. Lions Community Hall, Visakhapatnam. 4 R. Sampath S/o. not known Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Kisan Bhavan, Ramnagar, Opp. Lions Community Hall, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by setting aside the suspension order Ref.No. VZO:IR:316 dt. 2-2-2008 issued by the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to restore the petitioner back to service as Branch Manager, Dommeru Branch, W.G. Distrfict and provide the petitioner all wages back and future. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SIVANANDA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2368 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order dated 02.02.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent-Zonal Manager Bank of India, placing the petitioner under suspension pending investigation and appropriate disciplinary action is arbitrary and illegal. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents shows that the petitioner was suspended on 02.02.2008 and thereafter, a charge memo was issued on 30.12.2008. It is also stated that the enquiry is in progress and the same would be concluded expeditiously. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon the administration circular dated 29.12.2005 issued by the 1st respondent has contended that the disciplinary cases if any initiated against the employees of the Bank should be disposed of within a period of 6 to 9 months from the date of issuance of charge sheet and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated forthwith. Having regard to the fact that the enquiry is already in progress and keeping in view the undertaking of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the enquiry would be completed expeditiously, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner following due process of law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that in case the enquiry is not completed within the time fixed above, the petitioner shall be reinstated into service and the impugned order of suspension shall stand set aside. So far as the subsistence allowance to which the petitioner is entitled to, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the subsistence allowance was credited to the salary account of the petitioner up to 01.04.2008 and thereafter, he was advised to open separate savings bank account so as to enable the respondents to credit the subsistence allowance regularly. The said statement is placed on record and the respondent is directed to deposit the subsistence allowance regularly on opening a savings account by the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 17-08-2009 Note: issue C.C. in 2 days. B/o KLP