JUDGMENT Satyendra Singh Chauhan and Anil Kumar,JJ. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri R.B.S. Rathore and Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rupesh Kasmanda for the contesting respondent. 2. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that the petitioner, who was working on the post of Branch Manager in Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank, Mohammadi Branch, District Lakhimpur Kheri, was caught red handed by the C.B.I for taking bribe, so by an order dated 03.08.2011 (Annexure-2), he was placed under suspension. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a representation dated 13.03.2012 for withdrawal of the suspension order. As the same was not considered, so he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.364 (SB) of 2012: Mata Badal Singh vs. Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank, which was disposed of by an order dated 23.03.2012 with the following directions: "Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also without entering into the merits of the case, we dispose of the writ petition finally with a direction to the authority concerned to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.3.2012 as contained in Annexure No.6 to the writ petition and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously, say, within a period of three months from the date of receipt a certified copy of this order." 4. In pursuance to the said directions, the representation of the petitioner has been considered and an order dated 18.06.2012 (Annexure-1) has been passed by the Chairman/competent authority of the Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank regarding the same. 5. Orders dated 03.08.2011 and 18.06.2012 have been challenged by the petitioner by means of the present writ petition. However, in the meantime, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of suspension has been rejected by an order dated 21.09.2013, so he moved an application for amendment in the present writ petition, which was allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner has amended the writ petition, challenging the order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the appellate authority. 6. However, in the meantime, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of suspension has been rejected by an order dated 21.09.2013, so he moved an application for amendment in the present writ petition, which was allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner has amended the writ petition, challenging the order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the appellate authority. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned orders, submits that the petitioner has been placed under suspension for an indefinite period and till date, no charge sheet has been issued to him, so keeping in view the said facts as well as law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and another (Civil Appeal No.1912 of 2015) decided on 16.02.2015 and no reason has been given by the competent authority for extension of the suspension order, the impugned order of suspension is liable to be set aside. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon Para-14 of the judgment given in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), wherein it has been held as under: "We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its officers within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Regulation-30 of the Regulations known as Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, does not deal with the situation as what will be the fate of a person, who has been suspended on the ground that he has been sent to jail and after he being released on bail, keeping the said facts and orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.364 (SB) of 2012: Mata Badal Singh vs. Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank, the competent authority was obliged to record his satisfaction. However, no satisfaction has been recorded, so there is no justification or reason thereby authorizing the competent authority to place the petitioner under suspension, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Sri Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rupesh Kasmanda, appearing for the contesting respondent, while opposing the prayer as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been caught red-handed while taking bribe by the C.B.I., so keeping in view the said fact, he has been placed under suspension. 9. It is further submitted that thereafter sanction has been granted for prosecution by means of order dated 27.08.2011, copy of which, has been filed as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed. Thereafter a criminal case was initiated against the petitioner, in which, a charge sheet was issued against him by the C.B.I. So the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the present case and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.? 11. Thereafter a criminal case was initiated against the petitioner, in which, a charge sheet was issued against him by the C.B.I. So the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the present case and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.? 11. So far the first argument, that has been advanced, by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been placed under suspension for a period of beyond three months i.e. indefinite period is concerned, from the material on record, it is clearly established that on 01.08.2011, he was trapped by the C.B.I. for taking bribe and thereafter, placed under suspension by an order dated 03.08.2011. Later on, by an order dated 27.08.2011, the Chairman/competent authority of the Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank has accorded sanction under Section 19(1)(C) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 and 13(2)r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in respect of the act done by him. Accordingly, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner, in which, a charge sheet has been filed. 12. So the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), wherein it has been held that an employee cannot be kept under suspension beyond a period of three months and if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer and if the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension, as the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him, as such the facts of the said case are not applicable in the present case, rather the present facts are on entirely different footing. 13. Further, while taking into consideration the judgment passed in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.648 of 2015: Dilip Kumar Soni vs. Allahabad Bank and others, vide order dated 29.05.2015 held as under: "....................We have considered submissions of the rival parties and perused the record. 13. Further, while taking into consideration the judgment passed in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.648 of 2015: Dilip Kumar Soni vs. Allahabad Bank and others, vide order dated 29.05.2015 held as under: "....................We have considered submissions of the rival parties and perused the record. Rule 12(1)(b) of the Regulations of 1976 provides that an officer/employee may be placed under suspension by the competent authority where a case against him in respect of criminal offence is under inspection, inquiry or trial. Rule 12(2) of the Regulations provides that an officer/employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the competent authority w.e.f. the date of detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding 48 hours. Rule 12(5) provides that 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 an authority competent authority to do so. Sub-Rule (b) of Rule 12(5) provides that 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 deemed to have made the order. Initially the petitioner herein was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.12.2012 under Regulation 12(2), referred to above, on the ground of his detention exceeding 48 hours in connection with a criminal charge. By the time his application for revocation of the suspension under Regulation 12(5)(b) came up for consideration, not only the competent authority had sanctioned his prosecution under Section 19 of the Act on being satisfied that a prima facie case existed against him, but the criminal case also became pending against him before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, C.B.I. (West), Lucknow, thereby attracting the provisions contained in Regulation 12(1)(b) allowing the suspension to continue on account of pendency of an investigation, inquiry or trial in respect of any criminal offence. In these circumstances, on a perusal of the impugned order, we find that it contains cogent reasons for declining to revoke the suspension which does not suffer from any error in the eyes of law. In these circumstances, on a perusal of the impugned order, we find that it contains cogent reasons for declining to revoke the suspension which does not suffer from any error in the eyes of law. We do not find any valid ground for interference in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, specially in view of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party and referred hereinabove. As far as the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, we are of the view that as the petitioner was Branch Manager in a nationalized bank, his position was one of Trust vis.-a-vis. the Bank and its customers and the Supreme Court has repeatedly held in the case of Bank Employees that they have to maintain the highest degree of integrity, sincerity and trust and any act breaching the same has to be viewed seriously. The petitioner herein is alleged to have demanded and accepted bribe for which the criminal case is pending against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, therefore, under these circumstances, persuaded by the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the opposite parties are justified in refusing to revoke the suspension, as, if the petitioner is put back in service with such serious charges, neither the possibility of repetition of the earlier acts, as alleged, can be ruled out nor the serious consequences flowing therefrom for the Bank. The Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and others v. Deepak Kumar Bhola (supra) has observed that it would be inconveivable that a Bank should allow an employee to continue to remain on duty when he is facing serious charges of corruption and misappropriation of money. Accordingly, it quashed the judgment of the High Court quashing the order of suspension of an employee of the Allahabad Bank, i.e. the same Bank involved herein. In view of the above, we are of the view that the proposition laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case (supra) relied by the petitioner cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, specially as the petitioner being an employee of the Bank stands on a different footing, vis.-a-vis. other employees. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition lacks merits and is dismissed." 14. other employees. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition lacks merits and is dismissed." 14. The said situation also exists in the present case, so the argument in question has no force and is accordingly rejected.? 15. So far the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding Regulation-30 of the Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, the relevant portion quoted hereinbelow: "30. 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." 16. The petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the same in view of the facts stated hereinabove because as per the admitted facts of the case, the petitioner has been caught red handed by the C.B.I. for taking bribe and in respect of the said incident, prosecution has already been sanctioned and a criminal case is pending, in which a charge sheet has been filed. 17. Thus, when the proceedings against the petitioner have been initiated under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and in context of discharge of his official function/duties and in case the petitioner is allowed to discharge his duties, it shall not be in the interest of the equity rather shall be repugnant to the context. Hence, there is no justification to set aside the suspension order, because Apex Court in the case of Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department Vs. Hence, there is no justification to set aside the suspension order, because Apex Court in the case of Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department Vs. L. Srinivasan, (1996) 3 SCC 157 , observed that even if a criminal trial or enquiry takes a long time, it is ordinarily not open to the Court to interfere in case of suspension as it is in the exclusive domain of the competent authority who can always review its order of suspension being an inherent power conferred upon him to place an employee under suspension and while exercising such a power, the authority can consider the case of an employee for revoking the suspension order if satisfied that the criminal case pending would be concluded after an unusual delay for no fault of the employee concerned. (See also: U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Vs. Sanjeev Ranjan (1993) Supp. (3) SCC 483; and State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena and others (1996) 6 SCC 417 . 18. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition, and the same is dismissed. 19. No order as to costs.