JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Arora,J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned suspension order dated 13.04.2013 passed by the Chairman, Allahabad Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank (opposite party no. 1), as contained in Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. Petitioner is further seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding the opposite parties to allow him to join as well as function and discharge the duties on the post of Senior Manager, Kanchhar at Branch Bisheeshwarganj, District-Bahraich. 2. The brief matrix of the case is that on 13.11.1981 petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Officer in Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank. On 01.03.2001, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Senior Manager Scale-II, which is a Group III post. On 29.07.2010, petitioner was posted as Branch Kanchhar Bisheshwarganj, District-Bahraich. While working at Kanchhar Bisheeshwarganj, a complaint was made against the petitioner on 11.04.2013 by one Munna Lal s/o Ramanand to the Superintendent of Police of Prevention of Corruption Branch, C.B.I. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. In the said complaint, Munna Lal alleged that he applied for loan in the year 2010-11 from Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank, Kanchhar at Branch Bisheeshwarganj under the Scheme of Mukhya Mantri Gram Rozgar Yojna and petitioner was harassing the complainant and demanded the illegal gratification for releasing the loan amount. 3. In pursuance of the said complaint, C.B.I. registered a case bearing no. RC0062013A0010 under Section 7 & 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 against the petitioner and arrested him. After the arrest of the petitioner, he was placed under suspension by means of order dated 13.04.2013. The order of suspension was served upon the petitioner on 16.04.2013 when he was in Jail. On 13.06.2013, Special Judge, C.B.I. released the petitioner on bail on the ground that as per the provisions of sub clause (II) of proviso A to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., charge-sheet has not been submitted within 60 days from the date of arrest by the CBI. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated by complainant Munna Lal, as nothing has been committed by the petitioner in respect of offence as alleged by the C.B.I. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that loan amount of Rs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated by complainant Munna Lal, as nothing has been committed by the petitioner in respect of offence as alleged by the C.B.I. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that loan amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was sanctioned by the Bank in two types; one was term loan by which on 02.02.2013 Rs. 50,000/- was paid to Munna Lal and another was Cash Credit Limit (CCL) of Rs. 70,000/-. The Cash Credit Limit Amount of Rs. 70,000/- has to be paid by cheque for which 25 leaf of a cheque book bearing no. 186171 to 186200 was issued in favour of complainant Munna Lal. In respect of Cash Credit Limit Munna Lal on 06.03.2013 had presented only one cheque bearing no. 186176 of Rs. 35,000/- in the bank and same was en-cashed by him and thereafter no cheque or withdrawal slip to withdraw the cash from the Cash Credit Limit (CCL) has not been presented by the complainant. 5. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once Cash Credit Limit has been sanctioned by the bank, the Manager has no authority to stop or restrain the Cash Credit Limit amount and if the account holder had presented the cheque to withdraw the money, then it was the obligatory duty of the bank to withdraw the amount. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as account holder had not presented the cheque in the bank for withdrawal of Cash Credit Limit amount, therefore the allegation against the petitioner that he did not release the Cash Credit Limit (CCL) is totally false and fabricated. 6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 18.06.2013, after his release on bail, petitioner submitted an application along with order dated 13.06.2013 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Lucknow for his joining to opposite party no. 1 through opposite party no. 2, but the opposite parties did not allow the petitioner to join his duties on the post of Senior Branch Manager at Kanchhar at Branch-Bisheeshwarganj, District-Bahraich. Petitioner once again on 05.07.2013 submitted representation to the opposite parties and requested to allow him to join his services, but till date no action has been taken by the opposite parties, therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by means of present writ petition. Petitioner once again on 05.07.2013 submitted representation to the opposite parties and requested to allow him to join his services, but till date no action has been taken by the opposite parties, therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by means of present writ petition. It is also pointed out that petitioner is going to attain the age of superannuation on 31.08.2013. 7. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after release of the petitioner from jail, the bank authorities were required to consider and decide the application of the petitioner for reinstatement and pass afresh order, permitting the petitioner to join on the post in question. Learned counsel for petitioner in support of his submission placed reliance on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Chandra Shekhar Vs. Director of Education (Basic) U.P., Lucknow and another; 1997 (1) UPLBEC 165 . Further reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G. Pal Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajisthan; 2013 (31) LCD 41. Learned counsel for the petitioner by means of supplementary affidavit also brought on record the copy of statutory appeal dated 13.08.2013 filed under Regulation 49. 8. Shri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that perusal of suspension order dated 13.04.2013, itself reveals that the same has been passed in exercise of powers under Regulation 30(1) of Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010. Regulation 30 (1) of Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010 reads as under: "Officer or employee arrested for debt or on a criminal charge; (1) An Officer or employee who is arrested for debt or on a criminal charge or detained in pursuance of any process of law for the time being in force, may, if so directed by the Competent Authority, be treated as being or having been under suspension from the date of his arrest, and or detention, as the case may be, up to such date or during such period as the Competent Authority may direct: Provided that in respect of the period in regard to which he is so treated, he shall be paid subsistence allowance as specified in regulation 46." 9. Learned counsel for opposite parties also submits that petitioner has a right to file an Appeal under the Regulation-49 of Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010 to the appellate authority i.e. Board of Directors of Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank specified in Regulation 50. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further points out that petitioner submitted representation dated 18.06.2013 to the Chairman, Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank, Head Office, Banda requesting therein to allow him to join duty, without any reference to the suspension order dated 13.04.2013, nor there was any request for revocation of the suspension order dated 13.04.2013. Learned counsel for opposite parties submits that suspension order dated 13.04.2013 would continue until the same is modified or revoked by the competent authority or the appellate authority. 10. Shri Asit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for opposite parties in support of his submissions placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajiv Kumar; 2003 (6) SCC 516 and submitted that the suspension dated 13.04.2013 would continue until the same is modified or revoked by the competent authority or appellate authority. It is also submitted by Shri Chaturvedi that the Full Bench Judgment in the case of Chandra Shekhar Saxena Vs. Director of Education (Basic) U.P., Lucknow and another (supra) has been overruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment of Union of India Vs. Raj Kumar 2003(6) SCC 516 . 11. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.04.2013 by the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority on account of his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) on 12.04.2013, in pursuance to the Regulation 30(1) of Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010. The petitioner was released on bail by the Special Judge, C.B.I. on 13.06.2013 on account of non-submission of charge-sheet by the prosecuting agency within 60 days. The petitioner after release submitted an application on 18.06.2013 for his joining before the opposite party no. 1 (Chairman of the Bank, through Regional Manager) and it appears that no action has been taken on the said application by the opposite parties. The petitioner after release submitted an application on 18.06.2013 for his joining before the opposite party no. 1 (Chairman of the Bank, through Regional Manager) and it appears that no action has been taken on the said application by the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the opposite parties took an objection that as per Regulation 30(1) of Regulation 2010 if an officer or employee is arrested for debt on a criminal charge or detained in pursuance of any process of law for the time being in force, on the direction of competent authority, will be treated as being or having been under suspension from the date of his arrest/detention upto such date or during such period as he may direct and the competent authority in the present case vide order dated 13.04.2013 placed the petitioner under suspension from the date of his arrest. 13. It is also submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that petitioner has a remedy of filing appeal before the competent authority in pursuance to Regulation 49 or Regulation 2010. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner has been placed under suspension for indefinite period and admittedly, no action has been taken on the application of the petitioner dated 18.06.2013, by which the petitioner has requested for permitting him to join after his release from the Jail and in the meantime, petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2013. The reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Full Bench in the case of Chandra Shekahar Saxena Vs. Director of Education (Basic) U.P., Lucknow and others (supra) is concerned, admittedly the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajiv Kumar (supra) has held that the view of Full Bench of Allahabad High Court that the legal fiction created ceases to be effective for the purposes of suspension while operative for other purposes is clearly unsustainable. The second judgment rendered in the case of Gurpal Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (supra) is concerned, the same is also not applicable in the case of petitioner as in the said case, the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal court and his acquittal was affirmed by High Court and in this background, it was held that decision to continue the petitioner under suspension was harsh. 14. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (supra) is concerned, the same is also not applicable in the case of petitioner as in the said case, the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal court and his acquittal was affirmed by High Court and in this background, it was held that decision to continue the petitioner under suspension was harsh. 14. However, looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case that the competent authority of the Bank (Chairman and Disciplinary Authority) placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 13.04.2013 on account of his arrest on 12.04.2013 by the C.B.I., by invoking the provision of Regulation 30 (1) of Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Rules 2010, in pursuance to the complaint made by one Munna Lal with respect to harassing him and demanding illegal gratification for release of loan and while placing the petitioner under suspension the competent authority had not choose to initiate any departmental proceedings against the petitioner as is evident from the perusal of impugned order dated 13.04.2013 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) and as such petitioner's suspension itself come to an end on his attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2013. 15. As the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation and the opposite parties apparently have not taken any decision to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, therefore, opposite parties are bound to act in accordance with law while settling the retiral dues of the petitioner. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.