JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) : Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. 2. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to set aside and quash the charge-sheet dated 05.12.2012 (Annexure-2), to pay full salary to the petitioner from 24.08.2016, i.e. the date of suspension of the petitioner, till 30.06.2017 and to quash the appointment of respondent No. 3 as the new Enquiry Officer, appointed vide letter dated 23.02.2017 issued by the respondent No. 2. 3. Though charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 05.12.2012, the petitioner was not suspended. However, the petitioner was suspended by an order dated 24.08.2016 during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings. The respondent No. 3 was also appointed as the new Enquiry Officer. 4. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as WP(C) 2193/2017. The writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 23.06.2017. At paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment and order, the Court noted as follows: “7. At the outset it may be noticed that the grievance of the petitioner as projected through this writ petition is with regard to his suspension order which was belatedly issued on 24.08.2016 and the communication dated 23.02.2017 by which the respondent No.3 was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. Considering the limited grievance of the writ petitioner, examination of other aspects as submitted by the counsel of the respective parties is not found to be necessary. The admitted position is that the charge-sheet was issued for certain allegations against the writ petitioner vide communication dated 31.10.2012 and pursuant to which the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner commenced. As may be noticed, the inquiry proceedings could not be completed by the appointed Inquiry Officer on account of non-submission of the report and written findings by the Presenting Officer. However, vide order dated 24.08.2016, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending departmental inquiry and the respondent No.3 was also appointed as the Inquiry Officer replacing the earlier Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 23.02.2017. The authority concerned according to the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. However, vide order dated 24.08.2016, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending departmental inquiry and the respondent No.3 was also appointed as the Inquiry Officer replacing the earlier Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 23.02.2017. The authority concerned according to the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is empowered to do so under the Staff Service Rules of the Bank in terms of Rule 30, wherein, it is provided that the Managing Director would be the disciplinary authority in respect of the Junior Officer grade and above of the Bank. The petitioner admittedly is a senior officer of the bank and therefore, the Managing Director acted within his power.” (emphasis supplied) 5. The respondent No. 3 in the said writ petition is none other than Sri Jogesh Chandra Das, who is arrayed as respondent No. 3 in the present writ petition. 6. A perusal of paragraph 9 of the aforesaid order dated 23.06.2017 would go to show that although the writ petitioner had resisted the appointment of respondent No. 3 therein as the Enquiry Officer, nonetheless, Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel, who had appeared for the petitioner in the said writ petition, had submitted that the petitioner was ready to face the enquiry proceedings and that the respondent authorities be directed to conclude the proceedings as early as possible after revoking the order of suspension. The Court had held that when the charge-sheet had been submitted on 31.10.2012, the suspension of the writ petitioner by the order dated 24.08.2016 was without any logic and, therefore, the Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner pending formal completion of the departmental enquiry within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 7. Therefore, a reading of paragraph 7 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment makes it abundantly clear that the challenge made in this writ petition with regard to the appointment of the respondent No. 3 as the new Enquiry Officer is misconceived as the issue had already been agitated by the petitioner and was also decided by this Court. 8. That apart, the said order demonstrates that there was categorical assertion of the petitioner that he was ready to face the enquiry proceedings and, therefore, the point canvassed by Mr. 8. That apart, the said order demonstrates that there was categorical assertion of the petitioner that he was ready to face the enquiry proceedings and, therefore, the point canvassed by Mr. Roy in the present proceeding with regard to the appointment of the respondent No. 3 as the new Enquiry Officer cannot be gone into. 9. The prayer made by the petitioner with regard to payment of full salary for the period of his suspension is sought to be justified by Mr. Roy by placing reliance on Rule 36 of the Staff Service Rules of the Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd. (for short, “Service Rules”). Rule 36 reads as follows: “36. Subsistence allowance: An employee who is placed under suspension shall during the period of such suspension be entitled to receive payment from the bank by way of subsistence allowance on the following scale, For the first three months 1/3rd of the pay and allowances which the employee would have got but for the suspension. Thereafter ½ of the pay and allowances. After one year, full pay and allowances if the enquiry is not delayed for reasons attributable to the concerned employees. Where the investigation is done by an outside agency (police/CBI) and the said agency has come to the conclusion not to prosecute the employee, full pay and allowance will be payable after 6 months from the date of receipt of the report of such agency, or one year after suspension, whichever is later.” 10. The petitioner was suspended on 24.08.2016 and as the suspension of the petitioner had been set aside by this Court, he was reinstated in service with effect from 30.06.2017. Rule 36 of the Service Rules will apply only when an enquiry is not completed within one year of its commencement and the employee continues to remain under suspension beyond a period of one year. As such, the submission of Mr. Roy is without any merit. 11. Rule 36 of the Service Rules will apply only when an enquiry is not completed within one year of its commencement and the employee continues to remain under suspension beyond a period of one year. As such, the submission of Mr. Roy is without any merit. 11. Regulation 37 of Service Rules provides that where the competent authority holds that the employee has been fully exonerated or that the suspension was unjustifiable, the employee shall be deemed to have been on duty and shall be entitled to full pay and allowances and to all other privileges for the period of suspension, and if some punishment other than dismissal is inflicted, the whole or part of the period of suspension may, at the discretion of the management, be treated as on duty with the right to a corresponding portion of pay and allowances, etc. 12. Therefore, the suspension period of the petitioner, in the attending facts and circumstances, will be governed Rule 37 of the Service Rules and the period of suspension has to be dealt with only after conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding. 13. In that view of the matter, I find no good ground to entertain this writ petition and, accordingly, the same is dismissed at the motion stage. No cost.