(1) HEARD counsel on both sides.

(2) LEAVE granted.

(3) THE respondent was an employee in the appellant Bank. On the basis of certain alleged misconduct on the part of the respondent, he was placed under suspension by order dated April 19, 1996, by the competent authority in terms of Regulation 12.1 of the Puniab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. The said order of suspension was challenged. The High Court took the view that" the order of suspension did not mention whether any disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or were pending against the respondent or any criminal case was under investigation, inquiry or trial and hence the order was not maintainable. The suspension was quashed, The Bank has come up in appeal.

(4) IN our opinion, the law does not require that the suspension order must on its face disclose that any disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or were pending or that any criminal offence was under investigation, inquiry or trial. It would be sufficient if the competent authority recorded in its proceedings that the conditions mentioned in Regulation 12.1 were in existence.

(5) LEAR