JUDGMENT
M.C. Jain, J.
(1) Role D.B. Heard learned counsel for the parties’ By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the charge-sheet and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondents. The petitioner has been suspended vide Order dated 11th July, 1990. An objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that the writ petition is premature as no final order has so far been passed. The charges are to be enquired into and thereafter final orders will be passed. At this stage, the petitioner can make no grievance and so far as the order of suspension is concerned, the respondent’s case is that the petitioner’s conduct in the present charge-sheet as well as his subsequent conduct may be kept in view. The petitioner has been served with a second charge-sheet in connection with false claims of TA/DA as well as excess claim of house rent, accommodation of certain parties without fulfillling the normal requirements, etc. In respect of these misconducts, there are as many as 10 serious charges against the petitioner. Having regard to the conduct of the petitioner while serving the bank, the petitioner has been suspended, although the order of suspension has not been challenged in the main writ petition.
(2) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of suspension is issued in disregard of the guidelines as contained in the communication dated 29th June, 1981 (Annexure P-7). We have been carried through the guidelines, It is tiue that in relation to the first charge-sheet, it can be said that the requirements of the guidelines may not be there but still having regard to the over all conduct of the petitioner as would be evident from the second charge sheet, we are of the opinion that the order of suspension of the petitioner calls for no interference at this stage,
(3) Coming to the merits of the writ petition, it may be stated that the petitioner has inter alia, challenged the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of bias. Not only the petitioner but the higher authorities had signed the Balance-sheet. The present Enquiry Officer is Shri S K. Abrol, General Manager (Planning). Admittedly, Shri S.K. Abrol, was a signatory to the balance-sheet of the year ending 31st March 1990. Being the signatory, it is alleged against him that he will have bias against the petitioner as be appended his signature on the Balance-Sheet taking the disputed entry to be correct. The Balance Sheet was signed by the petitioner earlier to him.
(4) Counsel for the respondent states that the bank is prepared to appoint Shri A.R.Lamba, Deputy General Manager, who is not a signatory to the Balance Sheet. We need not go into the question as to whether there is any bais so far as Shri A.R. Lamba is concerned. He is no doubt subordinate to the General Manager (Planning) and to other higher officers and authorities but that can be no basis for challenging his acting as Enquiry Officer. So far as quashing of the charge-sheet and disciplinary proceedings are concerned, we find no justification for the same.
(5) In the result, we fine no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed with this direction that the enquiry proceedings shall not be conducted by Shri A K Abrol, General Manager Planning and it may be conducted by Shri A R. Lamba, Deputy General Marager. The respondents are further directed to expedite the enquiry and the petitioner shall fully co-operate in the enquiry. The enquiry may be completed as far as possible, within a period of there months. The petition stand disposed of.