The court affirmed that an employee can be suspended pending inquiry for serious misconduct, even if the inquiry has not yet commenced.

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. 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 pet