- (1.) HEARD finally with the consent of parties.
(2.) PETITIONER has preferred this writ petition challenging his suspension order dated 23.10.2010 passed by the respondent No.2- Alwar Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Alwar. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that as per Rule 17(4)(2) of the Urban Co-operative Banks Employees Service Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2006'), an employee can be suspended from duty if he is charged with major misdemeanour for the alleged misconduct pending enquiry or final disposal of his case. He submitted that on the date of issuance of impugned order of suspension, no charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, therefore, no enquiry was pending on that day. Since no enquiry was pending, therefore, order of suspension could not have been issued under Rule 17(4)(2) of the Rules of 2006. He further submitted that this Court vide order dated 13.12.2010, stayed the suspension order dated 23.10.2010, therefore, under the interim order of this Court, petitioner is still working with the respondent-Bank. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that charge-sheet has now been served upon the petitioner, therefore, enquiry is pending against him, therefore, action of respondents may be treated as in accordance with Rule 17(4)(2) of the Rules of 2006. He further submitted that he filed an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, way back in February, 2011 and since then, it is pending, therefore, interim order is going on. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , charge-sheet has now been served upon the petitioner, vide charge-sheet dated 13.01.2011. Petitioner, who is present in person in the Court, referred a copy of charge-sheet. In these circumstances, it is clear that charge-sheet has now been served upon the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents filed an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, but the same could not be disposed off so far and interim order is going on in the matter since 13.12.2010. As per Rule 17(4)(2) of the Rules of 2006, it is prescribed that an employee charged with major misdemeanour may be suspended from duty for the alleged misconduct pending enquiry or final disposal of his case. Such an order shall be in writing and take effect immediately from the date of issue. Rule 17(4)(2) of the Rules of 2006 is reproduced as under:- "17. DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR MISCONDUCT: (4) .... 1}....... 2} An employee charged with major misdemeanour may be suspended from duty for the alleged misconduct pending enquiry or final disposal of his case. Such an order shall be in writing and take effect immediately from the date of issue. " ;