4.3. On merits, it is stated that the petitioner has not submitted the Assets and Liability Statement from 31.3.1990 to 31.3.1996. Thus, such breach amounts to misconduct. It was further found that the petitioner was indulging in speculation of stocks, shares and other securities with the amount allegedly borrowed from one S.S.Ramadoss. Thus, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet as stated supra. As the imputation of nonsubmission of the Assets and Liabilities Statement was proved and other imputations were not proved in the domestic enquiry, the disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of withholding the next three increments of pay with cumulative effect for a period of three years. Under the very same order, the disciplinary authority also revoked the suspension and reinstated the petitioner. Accordingly, he was reinstated as Assistant Manager. It was also ordered therein that the suspension period of the petitioner was to be treated as the one not spent on duty. The criminal case filed against the petitioner ended only on 10.6.1998 and however, the departmental enquiry was in progress. As such the petitioner was continued under suspension till it was lifted by the original order passed by the disciplinary authority on 3.7.2000. Therefore, the petitioner's suspension is justified. The contention of the petitioner that there was no separate or concurrent suspension is not correct. The suspension was quite lawful as the same was made in pursuant to the arrest of the petitioner by the CBI on 12.4.1996. As per Regulation 12(2) of the said Regulations, the petitioner was deemed to be under suspension as he was arrested and put behind the bar for more than 24 hours. Once the petitioner was placed under deemed suspension, he would continue to be under suspension till its revocation by the respondent Bank. There was no need for the respondent Bank to place the petitioner under suspension once again , when he was already under suspension under Regulation 12(1).
