ORDER

1. We have heard the learned Additional Solicitor General in support of the application for restoration. Subject to the payment of Rs. 500 which amount has already been deposited by the petitioners and has been withdrawn by Respondent 1, the said application is allowed and the special leave petition is restored to its original position.

2. Taken on board.

3. Leave granted.

4. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 28-10-1994 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in writ petition [OP No. 10338 of 1989 (E)] filed by the respondent. The facts briefly stated are as follows :

The respondent is employed with the Andhra Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") and, at the relevant time, he was posted as the Manager of Ernakulam Branch of the Bank. Certain irregularities were found in the conduct of accounts of certain parties in that branch and by order dated 29-8-1984, passed by the Assistant General Manager of the Bank, the respondent was placed under suspension. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 7-5-1985, containing 17 charges, was served on the respondent and disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the basis of the said charge-sheet. But, in the meanwhile, the matter was taken up for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the respondent was prosecuted before a criminal court. The respondent was, however, acquitted in the said case. The respondent, however, continued to remain under suspension since 29-8-1994. On 7-12-1989, he filed the writ petition giving rise to this appeal challenging the order of suspension. It was submitted that the said order has not been passed by the authority competent to place the respondent under suspension under Regulation 12 of the Andhra Bank Officers, Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations"). In the said writ petition the learned Single Judge passed an interim order dated 12-12-1990, directing that full salary be paid to the respondent from 1-12-1990 till the enquiry was completed. In accordance with the said direction, the respondent has been paid full salary with effect from 1-12-1990. By judgment dated 25-3-1992, the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the learned Single Judge. It was held that the Assistant General Manager who had passed the order of suspension was not competent to pass the said order and the order of suspension was quashed. The Division Bench, in appeal, has affirmed the said judgment of the learned Single Judge.

5. It appears that in the disciplinary proceedings Charges 1 and 5 have been found to be established against the respondent and the disciplinary authority, namely, the Assistant General Manager, has passed an order dated 4-12-1 992, imposing the punishment of reduction of pay up to two stages in the time scale. As regards the payment of back wages for the period of suspension, the said order states that the Bank would be guided by the orders of the High Court.

6. The learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellants, has submitted that although no person had been nominated as the competent authority who could pass the order of suspension under Regulation 12 of the Regulations but having regard to the nature of the power to suspend an employee during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him it is implicit that the said power of suspension can be exercised by the disciplinary authority who is competent to impose the penalty of removal and dismissal on the employee and, therefore, the order of suspension dated 29-8-1984, passed by the disciplinary authority, viz., Assistant General Manager, was an order passed by the authority competent to suspend the respondent.

7. We find it difficult to accept this contention. A perusal of the a Regulations shows that a distinction has been made between the disciplinary authority who can impose a punishment on th