ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :- "It is, therefore, prayed that by appropriate writ, order or direction; suspension order dated 01.01.2019 (Annexure-3), charge-sheet dated 08.04.2019 (Annexure-8) and order dated 30.04.2019 (Annexure-13) and enquiry proceedings may kindly be quashed and set aside or in alternate respondent bank be directed to provide the documents which has been demanded by petitioner and he be permitted to submit written statement and thereafter the enquiry should be proceeded as per Rules of 2006 and Rules of 1958. Cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. Any other appropriate direction or order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Officer (Cash Credit and Current Deposit) with the respondent - Bhilwara Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited, Bhilwara (hereinafter to be referred as 'the respondent-bank') at Nagori Garden Branch, Bhilwara since 08.08.2014. 3. Vide order dated 01.01.2019 (Annexure-3), the petitioner was suspended from the said post on the ground that in the cash verification took place on 31.12.2018, the cash to the tune of Rs.2,51,25,500/- (Rupees Two crore fifty one lakh twenty five thousand five hundred only) was found less and as the Cash Safe Incharge Officer, he was supposed to close safe of the respondent-bank after cash verification but it appears that he was negligent towards his duties and, therefore, he was immediately suspended. 4. Vide order dated 08.04.2019 (Annexure-8), the petitioner was served with a notice under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Urban Co-operative Banks, Employees Service Rules, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 2006') along with charge-sheet and memorandum of charges. 5. Vide order dated 30.04.2019 (Annexure-13), the headquarter of the petitioner was changed from Head Office Nagori Garden, Bhilwara to Branch Gangapur, District Bhilwara. 6. These three orders (Annexures-3, 8 and 13) are essentially under challenge in this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was suspended illegally vide order dated 01.01.2019 (Annexure-3) because as per the Rule 17-I(4)(2) of the Rules of 2006, an employee can be suspended from his duties if he is charged with major misdemeanor for alleged misconduct pending inquiry or final disposal of his case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was suspended illegally vide order dated 01.01.2019 (Annexure-3) because as per the Rule 17-I(4)(2) of the Rules of 2006, an employee can be suspended from his duties if he is charged with major misdemeanor for alleged misconduct pending inquiry or final disposal of his case. It is contended that the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 01.01.2019 (Annexure-3) without initiating any inquiry, therefore, his suspension order is bad in the eye of law. It is also submitted that the respondent-bank vide order dated 08.04.2019 (Annexure-8) has illegally issued the charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rules of 2006 to the petitioner as the charges levelled against him are prima facie false. It is further contended that the respondent-bank vide order dated 30.04.2019 (Annexure-13) has illegally changed the headquarter of the petitioner from Head Office Nagori Garden, Bhilwara to Branch Gangapur, District Bhilwara. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is facing inquiry at Bhilwara and there is no reason to change his headquarters form Head Office Nagori Garden, Bhilwara to Branch Gangapur, District Bhilwara and such action of the respondent-bank will prejudice the petitioner and he will not be able to defend his case properly. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also vehemently argued that the respondent-bank has failed to furnish copies of the documents, which were demanded by the petitioner to file his explanation and to defend the inquiry but the respondent-bank refused to give him the copies of the documents as demanded by him only with the intention to harass him, so he may not be able to defend himself in the ongoing inquiry pending against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioner never worked as Cash Safe Incharge Officer at any point of time and, therefore, in such circumstances, the action of the respondent-bank of initiating disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner essentially alleging that the cash to the tune of more than Rs.2.51 crore was found less in the head office of the respondent-bank and for which the petitioner is liable, will prejudice the right of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioner has requested the respondent-bank for appointment of a defence nominee on his behalf but the respondent-bank has illegally rejected the said demand of the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioner has requested the respondent-bank for appointment of a defence nominee on his behalf but the respondent-bank has illegally rejected the said demand of the petitioner. 10. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards the various letters written by the petitioner to the authorities of the respondent-bank in relation to the demand of documents and in relation to challenge the action of the respondent-bank of changing his headquarters from Head Office Nagori Garden, Bhilwara to Branch Gangapur, District Bhilwara and the letters in response to those letters given by the respondent-bank. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed. 12. Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent-bank in which certain preliminary objections have been raised and the contents of the writ petition as well as the grounds taken by the petitioner in the writ petition are contradicted. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has submitted that the petitioner was the Cash Safe Incharge Officer, who was responsible for handling of the cash from respondent-bank's safe along with cashier of the respondent-bank in day-to-day working. It is further submitted that since 08.08.2014, when the petitioner was transferred to the post of Officer in (Cash Credit and Current Deposit) section, he was handling cash inasmuch as a key of the safe remained in his custody whereas another key remained in the custody of cashier viz. Rajesh Kumar Sharma. It is also submitted that one customer approached the respondent-bank on 29.12.2018 and requested its cashier viz. Rajesh Kumar Sharma to provide him fresh currency of Rs.3.60 lakh in place of old currency and upon which the Head Cashier provided him fresh currency, however, the said customer approached back on 30.12.2018 and complained that he found Rs.54,000/- less in the fresh currency given to him by the respondent-bank on 29.12.2018. 14. It is further submitted that despite efforts to make contact with Head Cashier viz. Rajesh Kumar Sharma then the Assistant Manager of the respondent-bank informed its Managing Director and on his request it was decided that the cash of the respondent-bank be verified to ascertain that Rs.54,000/- is excess in the cash of the respondent-bank or not. It is also submitted that initially the Head Cashier viz. Rajesh Kumar Sharma then the Assistant Manager of the respondent-bank informed its Managing Director and on his request it was decided that the cash of the respondent-bank be verified to ascertain that Rs.54,000/- is excess in the cash of the respondent-bank or not. It is also submitted that initially the Head Cashier viz. Rajesh Kumar Sharma opposed to move for cash verification, however, he was forced to agree for cash verification and the verification was started on 31.12.2018 in the presence of the Head Cashier as well as the petitioner, who was Cash Safe Incharge Officer. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has submitted that the petitioner and the then Head Cashier deliberately started counting of small notes denomination of 50, 20 and 10 and during that process lunch time has arrived. It is further submitted that Head Cashier viz. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, after taking permission from the petitioner, left the headquarters of the respondent-bank and never returned back. It is contended that after completion of cash verification, it was found that amount of Rs.2.51 crore is missing from the safe of the respondent-bank. It is contended that as the petitioner was working as Cash Safe Incharge since 2014, he was immediately suspended vide order dated 01.01.2019 (Annexure-3) in contemplation of inquiry against him. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has submitted that under the Rules of 2006, the respondent-bank very well within its jurisdiction, has passed the order dated 01.01.2019 (Annexure-3) suspending the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has further submitted that after the preliminary inquiry, the respondent-bank decided to conduct detail inquiry and in relation to that the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner vide order dated 08.04.2019 (Annexure-8). It is further submitted that the petitioner is deliberately not submitting any reply to the respondent-bank and demanding copies of documents, which are not at all relevant. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has invited my attention towards the letter dated 15.04.2019 (Annexure-9), written by the petitioner to the respondent-bank demanding several documents. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has submitted that the petitioner is demanding as many as 23 documents, however, almost all the documents except few documents all are not at all relevant. 18. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has invited my attention towards the letter dated 15.04.2019 (Annexure-9), written by the petitioner to the respondent-bank demanding several documents. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has submitted that the petitioner is demanding as many as 23 documents, however, almost all the documents except few documents all are not at all relevant. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has submitted that under the garb of demand of documents, the petitioner is not submitting any reply to the charge-sheet, however, time and again is repeating his prayer for supplying irrelevant documents. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has further invited my attention towards the several letters written by the petitioner demanding some documents as demanded earlier vide letter dated 15.04.2019 (Annexure-9) and further demanding some more documents. It is submitted that the action of the petitioner of demanding irrelevant documents is only an attempt to delay the inquiry pending against him. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has further submitted that the change of headquarters of the petitioner during suspension period from Head Office Nagori Garden, Bhilwara to Branch Gangapur, District Bhilwara was due to administrative exigency and is conformity with the Rules of 2006. It is argued that no provision of Rules of 2006 prohibits the respondent-bank from change the headquarters of a suspended employee pending inquiry. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has also submitted that the petitioner was otherwise not required to work at Branch Gangapur, District Bhilwara and he had to mark his presence there only. It is further submitted that the change of headquarter of the petitioner cannot prejudice the petitioner in any manner as he was not required to attend the inquiry on day to day basis but required to present only on the day of the inquiry. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has submitted that the demand of the petitioner of appointing defence nominee has been refused by the respondent-bank because the petitioner is demanding appointment of a particular defence nominee which cannot be permitted under the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958.Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has submitted that the news regarding missing of Rs.2.51 crore was spread in the area, the reputation of the respondent-bank was severely affected and people started withdrawing money from the respondent-bank, which caused huge loss to the reputation of the respondent-bank. 21. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has further submitted that the respondent-bank is not in a position to proceed with the inquiry against the petitioner because this Court vide order dated 12.09.2019 has stayed the inquiry proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court while levelling frivolous allegations only with the intention to delay the inquiry. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition as well as the stay petition may kindly be dismissed. 22. No rejoinder to the reply of the respondent-bank has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 23. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 24. It is noticed that the petitioner has not disputed the fact that, after completion of the cash verification on 31.12.2018, the cash of Rs.2.51 crore was found missing in the safe of the respondent-bank. It is also noticed that the petitioner has only disputed that he was not working as Cash Safe Incharge Officer of the respondent-bank, however, he has nowhere denied the fact that one of the keys of the safe was remained in his custody till he was suspended. It is to be noticed that the safe of the respondent-bank can be opened by putting two keys and out of those two keys, one key remained with the petitioner and another one with Head Cashier viz. Rajesh Kumar Sharma. 25. Prima facie it can be presumed that if the petitioner was having one of the keys of the safe in his custody, then he was handling the cash of the respondent-bank. Otherwise also whether the petitioner was working as Cash Safe Incharge Officer or not is a fact which can only be ascertained in the inquiry after taking into consideration the proof and evidence adduced by the parties and cannot be decided at this stage. 26. The contention of the petitioner to the effect that the respondent-bank has no power to suspend him without initiation of inquiry is bereft of any merit. When huge cash of Rs.2.51 crore was found missing in the cash of the respondent-bank, it cannot be presumed that the respondent-bank is not going to conduct any inquiry. Though, in the suspension order dated 01.01.2019 (Annexure-3) it is not clearly mentioned that the inquiry is initiated or contemplated against the petitioner but it can be presumed that the petitioner was suspended under the contemplation of inquiry. 27. Though, in the suspension order dated 01.01.2019 (Annexure-3) it is not clearly mentioned that the inquiry is initiated or contemplated against the petitioner but it can be presumed that the petitioner was suspended under the contemplation of inquiry. 27. So far as the challenge of the petitioner to the charge-sheet dated 08.04.2019 (Annexure-8) is concerned, I found that the said challenge is also without any basis. The principle argument of the petitioner that he was not Cash Safe Incharge Officer of the respondent-bank on 31.12.2018, when the cash verification took place, is again a question of fact which can only be decided during the inquiry and only on the said ground the charge-sheet issued by the respondent-bank against him cannot be set aside. The petitioner has to prove before the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority that he was not working as Cash Safe Incharge Officer at that relevant time and, therefore, the charges framed against him are not tenable. At this stage, it cannot be said that the charges framed against the petitioner vide order dated 08.04.2019 (Annexure-8) are without any basis. 28. The other contention of the petitioner against the change of his headquarter is also bereft of any merit as the petitioner has failed to point out any of the provision of the Rules of 2006 or any other law which prohibits the respondent-bank to change the headquarter of a suspended employe during pending inquiry. 29. It is noticed that the petitioner has delayed the inquiry and has not participated in the inquiry with the excuse that the documents demanded by him have not been supplied to him. 30. I have carefully examined the list of the documents demanded by the petitioner, except the 1 and 2 documents, such as the copy of the relevant Rules governing the field and the copy of the FIR filed by the respondent-bank against the Head Cashier viz. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, none of the documents demanded by the petitioner can be said to be relevant. For example the petitioner has demanded the following documents :- 31. The petitioner was required to clarify that how the cash more than Rs.2.51 crore was found missing from the cash of the respondent-bank and for that purpose the above referred documents demanded by him cannot be said to be relevant in the inquiry pending against him. 32. For example the petitioner has demanded the following documents :- 31. The petitioner was required to clarify that how the cash more than Rs.2.51 crore was found missing from the cash of the respondent-bank and for that purpose the above referred documents demanded by him cannot be said to be relevant in the inquiry pending against him. 32. The petitioner written umpteen number of letters to the respondent-bank levelling different kinds of allegations. Interestingly apart from the 23 documents, demanded by him vide letter dated 15.04.2019 (Annexure-9), he reiterated the supply of the said documents vide another letter dated 14.05.2019 (Annexure-18) and also demanded further information that the customer, who approached the respondent-bank for exchange of Rs.3.60 lakh, submitted which notes of old currency and demanded the details of the same and also demanded the details of the fresh currency provided to him. 33. The demand of this effect made by the petitioner vide letter dated 14.05.2019 (Annexure-18) is reproduced hereunder :- 34. This conduct of the petitioner is sufficient to conclude that rather then defending the charges levelled against him, he is interested in lingering the inquiry for indefinite period. 35. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find any merit in this writ petition the same is, therefore, dismissed with the cost of Rs.5000/-, which is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-bank. 36. The respondent-bank is directed to conclude the inquiry against the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from today after providing fair opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. The petitioner is directed to cooperate in the inquiry. 37. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not cooperate in the inquiry the respondent-bank is free to proceed against him ex-parte in accordance with the law. 38. Stay petition also stands dismissed. 39. All the pending applications are disposed of.