JUDGMENT : Shabihul Hasnain, J. Heard Sri M. Ali-1, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava for the opposite parties. 2. Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 6.2.2009 on the ground that he was arrested on criminal charges by the C.B.I. The Manager of the Bank was also arrested in the same connection. Exactly after a month, the petitioner was granted bail by the High Court on the ground that the Manager was directly responsible for the crime and the petitioner did not have any role. Petitioner was suspended on 6.2.2009 and the bail was granted to him on 6.3.2009. After grant of bail the petitioner submitted his representation on 18.3.2009 to the Assistant General Manager Zonal Office, Allahabad Bank, Lakhimpur Kheri requesting that he may be reinstated in service as he has been granted bail. More than a year has passed. When no order was passed on his representation the petitioner submitted his appeal to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Allahabad Bank, Kolkata on 16.6.2010 through proper channel which has been received on 11.6.2010 at Kherwahiya Branch of the Allahabad Bank in District Lakhimpur Kheri. Petitioner further says that identically situated persons like Mahendra Singh, S.K. Agarwal, C.P. Singh and Chaitanya Kumar involved in criminal cases by the C.B.I. are facing trial before the Anti-Corruption Judge at Lucknow but they have been reinstated in service while the petitioner's case is pending since 18.3.2009. 3. The main argument of the petitioner is that the opposite parties have not applied their mind on the representation filed by him on 18.3.2009. He simply argues that the representation filed by him has neither been rejected nor allowed. The case of the petitioner is that indifferent attitude and non-application of mind are there in the case of the petitioner. He further argues that his continued suspension is without any basis in as much as no conscious decision has been taken by the opposite parties in this case. Opposite parties would have been well within their rights if they had considered the case of the petitioner and come to a definite conclusion that he should remain under suspension in the interest of Bank. In that situation, the petitioner would not have any case. Opposite parties would have been well within their rights if they had considered the case of the petitioner and come to a definite conclusion that he should remain under suspension in the interest of Bank. In that situation, the petitioner would not have any case. The petitioner would have no case also if the Bank authorities were to decide that his continuance on the post of Cashier will lower down the prestige of the Bank in the eyes of common public. But simply keeping the representation pending without taking any decision on it either way can not be justified and inaction of the opposite parties will fall in the category of arbitrariness and whimsical action. Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava has drawn the attention of this Court towards the First Bipartite Settlement. Clause 19.3 (a) of this settlement is quoted below:- "19.3 (a) When in the opinion of the management an employee has committed an offence, unless he be otherwise prosecuted, the Bank may take steps to prosecute him or get him prosecuted, and in such a case he may also be suspended." 4. He has also cited Supreme Court decision reported in (1997) 4 SCC 1 (Allahabad Bank and another v. Deepak Kumar Bhola). In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that even a delay of ten years in completion of any inquiry will not entitle the petitioner to get a revocation of his suspension by the Court. The order of revocation of suspension of the High Court was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground of long delay is no ground for revocation of suspension. The Bank in that case was given full right to determine whether the posting of the petitioner in the Bank after the criminal charges was good or bad for the reputation of the Bank. 5. Learned counsel for the Bank has also argued that since the appeal is pending before the Allahabad Bank, the petitioner should await its result instead of approaching the Court. 6. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is entirely different. He does not dispute the power of the Bank under the First Bipartite Settlement to suspend the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the Bank has also argued that since the appeal is pending before the Allahabad Bank, the petitioner should await its result instead of approaching the Court. 6. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is entirely different. He does not dispute the power of the Bank under the First Bipartite Settlement to suspend the petitioner. He submits that case-law of the Supreme Court cited by the counsel for the Bank is although on the issue of revocation of suspension but the reason and philosophy given in the judgment are distinguishable from the case of the petitioner. 7. No doubt Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has set aside the revocation order passed by High Court in the matter of deemed suspension where it was not revoked or modified by the competent authority even after ten years. Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that simply passage of time can not be a criteria for revocation of suspension. Rather, it is the nature of the offence and its gravity which should be viewed by the competent authority before reinstating the delinquent employee. The distinction which learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to draw is that conscious decision had been taken in that case for reinstating the petitioner. The Bank had acted on the representation by the delinquent employee, applied its mind and then come to a definite conclusion that revocation of suspension of the delinquent in that case was not in the interest of the Bank. In the present case, there is no application of mind at all. There is no conscious decision. Officers of the Bank have not bothered to examine the issue on merit. The attitude is of simple callousness and routine indifference towards the case of the petitioner. The officers have failed to examine the role of the petitioner viz-a-viz the Manager. The observations of the High Court in the bail order were also not examined by the opposite parties. In short, the representation of the petitioner was not looked into by the opposite parties at all. Nearly, sixteen months have passed. The petitioner prays that his suspension be revoked by this Court on the aforesaid grounds. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and my respectful attentions to the observations made in the aforesaid case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. Nearly, sixteen months have passed. The petitioner prays that his suspension be revoked by this Court on the aforesaid grounds. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and my respectful attentions to the observations made in the aforesaid case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. The facts of the present case are distinguishable from the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Bank can keep the petitioner under suspension for long period after conscious decision but in case the suspension is continuing for lack of any consideration at all, it will be arbitrary. The present case is a case of non-application of mind, arbitrariness and unreasonable attitude of the opposite parties. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties prays for and is granted four weeks for filing counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within a week after that. 11. List thereafter. 12. Meanwhile, the operation and implementation of the suspension order dated 6.2.2009, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, shall remain stayed. 13. The inquiry and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the trial.