JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner was suspended from his service by order dated 12-06-2017, with effect from 09-06-2017, on the allegation of embezzling Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) from the account of M/s. R.N. Shanmuga Modern Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner has challenged the charge-sheet dated 07-10-2017, and the suspension order dated 12-06-2017, before this Court. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who happens to be an ex-serviceman below the rank of an officer from the Indian Air Force Service, was appointed on 13-10-2014, as a Single Window Operator with the Canara Bank, Bangarpete Branch, Kolar District. Allegedly, M/s. R.N. Shanmuga Modern Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. had issued six cheques for a total amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner. On presentation of the cheques, the amount was debited from the account of the Rice Mill. On 09-06-2017, the Assistance General Manager conducted a proceeding against the petitioner for the alleged misconduct. By order dated 12-06-2017, the petitioner was suspended with effect from 09-06-2017, ostensibly on the ground that he had carried out six unauthorized transactions amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- and credited the amount to his personal account by using the password of one Mr. Praveen Kumar B.N. Despite the lapse of three months, the petitioner was not served with a charge-sheet by the respondent-bank. The charge-sheet was submitted to the petitioner only on 07-10-2017. Hence this petition challenging the suspension order, and the charge-sheet before this Court. 3. Mr. Balakrishna M.R., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that in the case of AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER [ (2015) 7 SCC 291 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that in case a person is suspended for more than 90 days, after the lapse of 90 days, the suspension cannot continue, if the charge-sheet has not been furnished to him during the said period. Since the charge-sheet was not furnished to the petitioner within the period of 90 days, the suspension order cannot continue. Therefore, both the suspension order, and the charge-sheet deserve to be interfered with by this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned suspension order, and the charge-sheet. 5. A bare perusal of the charge-sheet dated 07-10-2017 reveals that the following charges have been leveled against the petitioner: 1. Therefore, both the suspension order, and the charge-sheet deserve to be interfered with by this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned suspension order, and the charge-sheet. 5. A bare perusal of the charge-sheet dated 07-10-2017 reveals that the following charges have been leveled against the petitioner: 1. Six cheques dated 25-05-2017 were issued by M/s. Sree Shanmuga Modern Rice Mills (P) Ltd. bearing the account No. 0485261005136 favouring you. These cheques were posted by you in the system, as vouchers without entering the cheque numbers and were authorized under the password of Sri Praveen Kumar B N (81480), then Officer. These cheques were marked as destroyed in the system under the option CHM 37. The details of the cheques are as follows: Cheque Number Amount (Rs.) 115324 5.00 lakhs 114895 5.00 lakhs 117659 2.00 lakhs 117193 3.00 lakhs 114539 3.00 lakhs 119797 2.00 lakhs 2. The above cheques totaling to Rs.20,00 lakhs were debited and the proceeds were transferred to your SB account No. 0671101024497. Out of which Rs.9.75 lakhs was transferred to account number 048101035743 of Sri R. Manjunath, your brother-in-law. Another Rs.9.75 lakhs was transferred to your account maintained at SBI, Bangarpet, with account number 30147274110 through NEFT. 3. All the above transactions were authorized by you under the password of Sri Praveen Kumar B N (81480), then Officer, handling SB/CA/OD counter, without his knowledge. You have orally admitted for having used the password to authorize the transactions. 4. When the incident came to light, you have threatened to commit suicide by locking yourself in the first floor of the branch premises on 29.05.2017 due to which the branch had to seek police intervention to get you out of the room which has tarnished the image of the Bank. 5. Undoubtedly, in the case of AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that a suspension order cannot continue indefinitely. Drawing an analogy from Section 167 of Cr.P.C. wherein the law imposes a duty upon the police to submit the charge-sheet within a period of 90days, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also opined that a suspension order should not continue beyond the period of 90 days, especially when the charge-sheet has not been furnished to the delinquent officer within the period of 90 days. 6. 6. If the analogy drawn by the Apex Court were to be taken to its logical conclusion, it is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in case the charge-sheet were to be filed by the police beyond the period of 90 days, but prior to the accused filing a bail application, then the accused cannot take the benefit of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The same analogy would have to be applied even in the present case. Although the charge-sheet was not furnished to the petitioner within the period of 90 days, but it was certainly furnished to him prior to his filing the present writ petition. For, the present writ petition was filed on 31-10-2017, and the charge-sheet was furnished to him on 07-10-2017. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to plead that the suspension continues to be an illegal one. 7. Interestingly, while the charge-sheet was furnished on 07-10-2017, the petitioner chose not to approach this Court till 31-10-2017. Thus, obviously, the present writ petition is hit by delay and laches. In case the petitioner was eager to challenge the suspension order, he should have approached this Court immediately after the completion of 90 days from the date of passing the suspension order. But he chose not to do so. Therefore, even on technical ground, this writ petition cannot be entertained. 8. A bare perusal of the alleged allegations made against the petitioner would clearly show that the allegations are not minor, but the allegations relate to the embezzlement of Rs.20,00,000/-. Considering the fact that the petitioner was working as a Single Window Operator at the Canara Bank; considering the fact that allegedly he had orally admitted to the allegations; considering the fact that allegedly he had even threatened to commit suicide, the allegations are sufficient to justify the petitioner’s continuous suspension from the bank. For, the allegations shake the very faith of the people in the efficient functioning of the bank. Therefore, the bank cannot be expected to reinstate the petitioner, and yet continue to have the faith of its customers in its efficient functioning. 9. It is clarified by way of abundant caution that the observations made by this Court are merely prima facie, and are not judicial finding. Therefore, the observations made by this Court should not adversely affect the outcome of the departmental enquiry which would be held against the petitioner. 9. It is clarified by way of abundant caution that the observations made by this Court are merely prima facie, and are not judicial finding. Therefore, the observations made by this Court should not adversely affect the outcome of the departmental enquiry which would be held against the petitioner. The respondent-bank is expected to assess the evidence produced, both by the bank and by the petitioner, in an objective and impartial manner, and to take a decision with regard to the alleged misconduct, strictly in accordance with law. Since the reputation of the petitioner is involved, and since his right to livelihood is partially eclipsed, during the period of suspension, the respondent-bank is directed to expeditiously conclude the departmental enquiry. 10. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is hereby dismissed.