JUDGMENT

The petitioner while working as a Special Assistant under the first respondent was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order, pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. The petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that the action of the first respondent in placing him under suspension and initiating disciplinary proceedings against him are vitiated and uncalled for in view of the provisions of Ext.P2 Bipartite Settlement that is applicable to him. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the issue of appropriate orders and directions quashing Ext.P1 and reinstating him in service.

2. According to the petitioner, he has been placed under suspension consequent to prosecution proceedings launched against him at the instance of the first respondent Bank. Ext.P3, the First Information Report (FIR), is dated 14/1/2011. As per Clause 4 of Ext.P2, disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against an employee only in a situation where despite initiation of prosecution proceedings the employee had not been put on trial even after the lapse of a period of one year. Since Ext.P3 FIR is dated 14/1/2011, it is contended that the suspension order Ext.P1 dated 5/1/2011