The suspension order cannot continue indefinitely and 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.

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. 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 interventi