JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Petitioner calls in question legality of the order passed by the General Manager (Personnel & Administration), United Bank of India (Opp. Party No. 2) (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer') placing him under suspension because a criminal proceeding is pending against him before the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 49 of 1994. 2. Background facts which are undisputed are essentially as follows: Petitioner was working as Branch Manager of the employer-bank in respect of Nimpur Branch. The Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, 'CBI') filed first information report inter alia on the ground that a loan of Rs. 2,25,000/- was sanctioned in favour of one Durga Prasad Das without following due procedure. Said Durga Prasad claimed to be a Distributor of cinematograph films. Rama Chandra Jena and Lokanath Jena stood as guarantors and agreed to mortgage their lands measuring Ac. 8.51 dec. to secure the loan. As per the norms and conditions of the bank, equitable mortgage in respect of the landed property/building has to be taken from the loanee. In case of Shri Durga Prasad, the aforesaid norms were not followed and security by way of equitable mortgage was not taken prior to sanction of the loan. Petitioner forwarded the loan application of Durga Prasad with favourable recommendations to sanction the loan. He also did not point out the irregularities. The petitioner did not make pre and post inspection while sanctioning the loan to Durga Prasad, a fictitious loanee. The loan was also granted for false purposes, and same was disbursed on manipulated documents. Periodic inspections were also not done and the matter was not pursued. Loan documents should not be renewed. It was, therefore, alleged that the petitioner has committed offence punishable u/s 120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'I.P.C.') and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the 'PC Act'). In terms, of Regulation 12(2) of the United Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (in short, the. 'Regulations') petitioner was placed under suspension. 3. Petitioner's grievance is that said Durga Prasad is not a fictitious person as claimed, because a Money Suit has already been instituted. Prolonged suspension has led to physical and mental torture, and consequentially stigma and humiliation. 'Regulations') petitioner was placed under suspension. 3. Petitioner's grievance is that said Durga Prasad is not a fictitious person as claimed, because a Money Suit has already been instituted. Prolonged suspension has led to physical and mental torture, and consequentially stigma and humiliation. Delay in submission of the charge sheet/completion of trial is not attributable to the petitioner and the order of suspension should be revoked and the petitioner should be permitted to join back. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the employer-bank it has been pointed out that the petitioner has been placed under suspension as he was detained in jail custody for more than 48 hours and therefore, it was within the competence of the authority to do so in exercise of power under Regulation 12(2)(a) of the Regulations. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner inter alia taking the stand that the bank at one hand has not co-operated in the completion of the proceeding before the criminal Court, and on the other hand has placed the petitioner under suspension, and as such the suspension cannot be continued indefinitely. 5. At the time of hearing, it was stated by the learned counsel for petitioner that no relief is claimed against the CBI. He also does not press the prayer relating to quashing of the proceedings/charges. It is stated that charges have already been framed and prayer for discharge has been rejected which is under challenge in this Court in Criminal Revision No. 56 of 1998. It was submitted by learned counsel for employer bank that the accusations against the petitioner are serious and it would not be conducive for the bank to accept the prayer for recalling the order of suspension. There is no period prescribed during which the period of suspension is not operated and merely because there has been some delay in finalisation of the criminal proceeding, that cannot be ground for recalling the order of suspension. 6. Regulation 12 is the pivotal provision to which reference has been made by the parties. The said provision reads as follows; "12 Suspension: (1) An Officer employee may be placed under suspension by the competent authority as specified in the third schedule to these regulations. (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, inquiry or trial. (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, inquiry or trial. (2) An Officer employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the competent authority. (a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty eight hours; (b) with effect from the date of conviction, if in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction. Explanation - The period of forty eight hours referred to in Clause (b) of this sub-regulation shall be computed from the commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose, intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into account. (3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon an officer employee under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under these regulations and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any 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, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until further orders, (4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon an officer employer under suspension is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of law, and the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold further inquiry against him on the allegation on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the officer employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the competent authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. 5(a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this regulation shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the Authority competent to do so. 5(a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this regulation shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the Authority competent to do so. (b) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this regulation may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order". In this connection it is necessary to take note of sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 12 which provides that an order of suspension shall be deemed to have been made under this Regulation. It shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. 'Competent Authority' is defined in Regulation 3(f). Third Schedule to the Regulation deals with competent authority, and same reads as follows: Sl. No. Reference to Regulation Number Competent Authority 1 12 a) For Officers in & up to Scale-III, the competent authority is an officer in or above Scale- VI. b) For Officers belonging to Scale-IV, V & VI, the competent authority is an officer in Scale VII or Executive Director or Chairman & Managing Directors. c) For Officers belonging to Scale- VI I, competent authority is Executive Director or Chairman & Managing Director. d) The Appellate Authority specified in the First & Second Schedule be the Competent Authority. On a bare reading of sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 12 it is clear that (a) the order of suspension may be modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so, and (b) it can be modified at any time by the authority which made and/or deemed to have made the order. The question is whether delay in disposal of a proceeding per se attracts sub-regulation (5). The power vests with the authority which made and/or is deemed to have made the order of suspension to modify or revoke the order of suspension. Reasons must exist before said action is taken by the authority. Same has to be cogent and plausible. It is the discretion of the concerned authority to take action in the matter. The discretion has to be exercised judicially. 7. In the case at hand, it is noticed that charges have been framed and the petitioner approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Same has to be cogent and plausible. It is the discretion of the concerned authority to take action in the matter. The discretion has to be exercised judicially. 7. In the case at hand, it is noticed that charges have been framed and the petitioner approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 2528 of 1994 for quashing the prosecution, but the same was withdrawn on February 13, 1995. Again he filed Criminal Revision No. 83 of 1995 in this Court which was dismissed on consideration of the fact that charge-sheet had been filed and charge had not been framed. The application was held to be premature. As pointed out above, prayer for discharge has been rejected, and the same is under challenge in Criminal Revision No. 56 of 1998. 8. Subsistence allowance payable during the suspension is dealt with in Regulation 14. Pay allowance and treatment of service on termination of suspension is dealt with in Regulation 15. Penalties are dealt with in Regulation 4. Suspension is not one of the penalties provided for. Suspension is of two kinds, namely, as a punishment, or as an interim measure pending a departmental enquiry or pending a criminal proceeding. So far as suspension as a punishment is concerned, it is a disciplinary matter. The dispute is only as to suspension pending a departmental enquiry or pending a criminal proceeding. There can be no doubt that suspension of this kind also must be comprised within the words 'disciplinary matters' as used in Article 314. Suspension pending a departmental enquiry cannot be but a matter immediately related to disciplinary matters. A distinction has to be drawn between suspending an employee from service and suspending him from performing the duties of his post or office. If there is a contract of service in the strict sense, the first kind of suspension involves the suspension of the contract while the second involves only a suspension of the employee from the, performance of his duties on the basis that the contract is subsisting. The power to suspend in the sense of a right to forbid a servant to work is not an implied term in an ordinary contract between master and servant, and that such a power can only be the creature either of a statute governing the contract itself; or of an express term in the contract itself. The power to suspend in the sense of a right to forbid a servant to work is not an implied term in an ordinary contract between master and servant, and that such a power can only be the creature either of a statute governing the contract itself; or of an express term in the contract itself. Ordinarily therefore the absence of such power either as an express term in the contract or in the rules framed under some statute would mean that the master would have no power to suspend an employee and even if he does so in the sense that he forbids the employee to work, he will have to pay wages during the so-called period of suspension. Where, however, there is power to suspend either in the contract of employment or in the statute or the rules framed thereunder the suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the relation of master and servant with the consequence that the servant is not bound to render service and the master is not bound to pay. Suspension of an employee during the course of his service, simply means that no work is to be taken from him during the period of suspension. The employee does not work on a post during the period of his suspension. If he is actually discharging the duty of a certain office prior to suspension, the order of suspension would mean that he could cease to work on and discharge the duties of that post. The real effect of the order of suspension is that though he continued to be a member of the service he was not permitted to work, and further, during the period of his suspension he was paid only some allowance generally called 'subsistence allowance' which is normally less than his salary instead of the pay and allowance he would have been entitled to if he had not been suspended. Suspension is in its very nature of a temporary duration and there can be no suspension of suspension. The word "suspension" means 'action of debarring or state of being debarred, especially for a time, from a function or privilege, temporary deprivation of one's Office or position' or again 'state of being temporarily' kept from doing or deprived of something. Suspension is in its very nature of a temporary duration and there can be no suspension of suspension. The word "suspension" means 'action of debarring or state of being debarred, especially for a time, from a function or privilege, temporary deprivation of one's Office or position' or again 'state of being temporarily' kept from doing or deprived of something. The meaning of the word 'suspend' has been given in the dictionary as 'to debar, usually for a time, from the exercise of function of enjoyment of a privilege, specially to deprive temporarily of one's Office, or again 'to interdict'. It connotes, temporary cessation of something as right, work or labour. The basic idea underlying the root word 'suspend and all its derivatives is that a person while holding an Office and performing its functions of holding a position or privilege should be interrupted is doing so and for the time being from further functioning in the Office or holding the position or privilege. He is intercepted in the exercise of his functions or his enjoyment of the privilege and put aside as it were, for a time excluded during the period from his functions or privileges. It is not a reduction in ranks as it is a temporary act. Suspension and reduction in rank are exceptionally different. It cannot be passed with retrospective effect as it would be opposed to the basic idea of the concept of suspension from service. Suspension is different from dismissal. Where a person is suspended from the post he holds, it is merely a direction that so long as he holds the post and until he is legally dismissed he must not do anything in the discharge of the duties of the office. 9. In the counter affidavit filed, it has been pointed out that the allegations against the petitioners are of very serious nature. Merely because the lessee has been detected and arrested by the CBI that does not ipso facto absolve petitioner from criminal liability. It has been directed that the order of suspension shall continue till termination of the criminal proceeding. In such matters, the Courts have very limited role to play. Unless the action is mala fide, a bereft of any reason or basis and there was any jurisdictional infraction this Court cannot interfere in the matter. It has been directed that the order of suspension shall continue till termination of the criminal proceeding. In such matters, the Courts have very limited role to play. Unless the action is mala fide, a bereft of any reason or basis and there was any jurisdictional infraction this Court cannot interfere in the matter. The reasons which weighed with the authorities to continue the proceeding cannot be said to be unreasonable. It would not be proper to make a thread bare analysis of the factual aspects during pendency of criminal proceeding where charge has already been framed. 10. At this juncture it is necessary to take note of the fact that the petitioner has been charged with various offences allegedly committed during the relevant period, and punishment for which would extend up to ten years imprisonment in case of conviction u/s 467, I.P.C. Allegation of mala fide are without any basis as investigation was conducted by CBI which resulted in filing charge-sheet alleging various offences to have been committed by the petitioner. It would be indeed inconceivable that a bank should allow an employee to continue to remain on duty when he is facing serious charges and in fact facing trial for alleged commission of several offences. The there fact that several years have elapsed since the time law was set into motion cannot be a ground to direct the employer- bank to take back the petitioner to duty. A decision of the Apex Court in Allahabad Bank and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola, supports this view. 11. That being the position, we are not inclined to entertain the writ application. However, it is open to the petitioner to move the criminal Court for early disposal of the proceeding, and if such a prayer is made, same shall be" dealt with in accordance with law by the appropriate Court. The writ application fails and is dismissed. S.C. Datta, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed