1. In this writ petition, the following issues are required to be determined:-

(1) Whether the respondent District Co-operative Central Bank is a State or an instrumentality of State in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India? Or, in the alternative is it imperative that the respondent ought to be a State or an instrumentality thereof to be subjected to the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

(2) Whether the order of suspension dated 27.3.2014 is punitive in nature?

(3) Whether the order of suspension complies with the regulatory regime of the respondent Bank?

(4) Whether, in the absence of any specific provision in the service regulations to suspend an employee, the employer has any inherent power to be exercised in that regard?

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a General Manager working in the 1st respondent Nalgonda District Co-operative Central Bank Limited (for brevity, Bank) in Nalgonda. While the petitioner was on medical leave between 21.10.2013 and 21.4.2014, the respondent Bank issued a notice to the petitioner on 25.1.2014 stating that a enquiry had been held and that in the report dated 30.9.2013 submitted by the Enquiry Officer, certain allegations of irregularities had come to light against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation, which he did on 19.3.2014. The Managing Committee of the respondent Bank is said to have met on 11.3.2014, even before the petitioner could submit his explanation and tentatively decided to place the petitioner under suspension. In any event, on 27.3.2014 the respondent Bank issued proceedings in R.C. No. Estt/E3/F.282/2013-14 placing the petitioner under suspension. Assailing the order of suspension on various grounds, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. Sri M. Venkat Ram Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, prefaced his submissions by stating that the respondent Bank is an instrumentality of State, inasmuch as it is under the strict supervision of the State as well as the Reserve Bank of India, which in fact has licensed it to be a banking company and that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has got deep and pervasive control over the respondent Bank.

4. Adverting to the merits of the matter, the learned Counsel has stated that the issue of suspension was fait accompli, since the Managing Committee which met on 11.3.2014 took a decision to place the petitioner under suspension, though the very explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 19.3.2014 explaining why no disciplinary proceedings were to be initiated against the petitioner. Thus, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of suspension is a product of non-application of mind, affecting the substantive rights of the petitioner to continue in service.

5. Referring to Nalgonda District Co-operative Central Bank Limited Service Regulations of the Employees (the Regulations for brevity), the learned Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Regulations 60 to 65 with specific emphasis on Regulation 64, which speaks of suspension. The learned Counsel has contended that though there is an elaborate procedure prescribed to be followed by the respondent Bank before placing a delinquent officer under suspension, it has not complied with any of those parameters but has, in a ritualistic manner, exercised the non-existing power of suspension. The learned Counsel has also stated that since the impugned order does not speak of paying any subsistence allowance, which is sine qua non, it is punitive in nature.

6. Expatiating on his submissions as to the undesirability of placing the petitioner under suspension, the learned Counsel has further submitted that after placing the petitioner under suspension, the respondent Bank has not followed up the issue with any further action, such as issuing a charge-sheet to the petitioner spelling out the charges, etc. A