N.K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 7.10.2003 and Board's Resolution dated 24.9.2003 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, by which the appeal against the order of suspension dated 11.10.2002 has been dismissed. Petitioner Ram Mukesh Gupta is an employee of Raebareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank. One Santosh Pandey lodged an FIR against him on 7.10.2002 with Special Police (Establishment) (CB1) under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and he was arrested by the CBI on the charge of taking bribe of Rs. 2000 from the complainant Santosh Pandey. On his arrest, he was suspended on 11.10.2002 vide Annexure No. 5. Later on he was released on bail on 28.11.2002. He submitted representation to the Chairman of the Bank requesting to allow him to join duties. His suspension was not revoked. He filed a Writ Petition No. 1134 (S/B) of 2003. This Court disposed of the writ petition by an order as contained in Annexure No. 2 on the ground of alternative remedy with the direction to the competent authority to decide the appeal within a period prescribed in the order. The petitioner preferred an appeal but the appeal was rejected by the impugned order. The case of the petitioner is that after the grant of the bail, he is entitled to join the duties and he deemed suspension should be revoked because the trial will take a lot of time. It is further alleged that in the instant case no departmental proceedings have been initiated and he was suspended merely on the ground of arrest by the CBI. It is contended that the deemed suspension is confined for the period of suspension and not beyond that unless modified by another fresh order. The suspension of the petitioner is continuing since long even after his release from Jail, which is not in accordance with the earlier decision of this Court. After the release from the jail no fresh suspension order has been passed. The action of the opposite party is in violation of Regulation 29 of Raebareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Services Regulation, 2001. The case of the petitioner is that during the detention he was suspended and therefore it is a case of deemed suspension which shall stand automatically revoked unless a fresh order is issued by the competent authority. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision in Chandra Shekhar Saxena v. Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow and another, 1997 (1) UPLBEC 165 . This contention has no force. The Full Bench decision of this Court cited above, has been over-ruled by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar, 2003 (98) FLR 753 (SC) .
(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the case of the petitioner is of deemed suspension, has also no force because under Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2001 there is no Regulation providing automatic deemed suspension. There are two Regulations, which deal with suspension. It is only on the direction of competent authority that an employee can be treated under suspension. The Regulation 45 dealing with suspension provides that an officer or employee may be placed under suspension by the competent authority and during such suspension, officer or employee shall be entitled for subsistence allowance as provided therein.
(3.) Regulation 46 deals with treatment of suspension period and allied matters. Regulation 47 provides the right to appeal against the order of suspension.;