JUDGMENT 1. - This is a special appeal under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgement of learned Single Judge dated 1.3.1982 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. A short controversy raised in the case is whether departmental enquiry can be started simultaneously against an employee who is also prosecuted in a criminal court. The petitioner-appellant was an employee of United Commercial Bank and was facing prosecution in the court of Special Judge, Jaipur for some offences committed by him in the year 1976. The charges in the criminal case, according to the appellant, were framed on 10-1-1978 and the criminal case is still pending trial. During the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case, a letter was sent to the appellant on 28-6-1979 proposing to hold an enquiry under Regulation 6 of the United Commercial Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court on 10-3-1980, which came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge took the view that there was no authority for the proposition that criminal prosecution and a departmental enquiry could not be started at one and the same time. Mr. Calla, learned counsel for the appellant first contended that an employee can either launch criminal prosecution or hold an enquiry and recourse cannot be taken simultaneously for both the proceedings. We do not find any force in this submission at all. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show any Rule or Law prohibiting such proceedings to be taken simultaneously. In our view the scope of departmental proceedings and a criminal prosecution are entirely different and there can be no valid reason to hold that such proceeding cannot be taken simultaneously. 3. Mr. Calla contended that the departmental proceedings have been initiated after a lapse of more than 3 years of the alleged misconduct and the lapse of such a long time is a denial of the principles of natural justice to the petitioner. Reliance in this regard is placed on Mohan Bhai Durga Bhai Parmar v. Y.B. Zala and another, 1980 L.I.C. 89. 4. We have gone through the aforesaid authority. In the above case, the departmental proceedings were initiated against a police constable after a lapse of 11/2 years for his arrival on duty late by 1/2 an hour. Reliance in this regard is placed on Mohan Bhai Durga Bhai Parmar v. Y.B. Zala and another, 1980 L.I.C. 89. 4. We have gone through the aforesaid authority. In the above case, the departmental proceedings were initiated against a police constable after a lapse of 11/2 years for his arrival on duty late by 1/2 an hour. In these circumstances the Gujarat High Court in the above case took the view that it would be impossible for the constable to explain after a lapse of 11/2 years as to why he got late on that particular day. The above authority has no relevancy to the facts an circumstances and the charges levelled against the petitioner in the present case. The departmental enquiry in the present case is with regard to wrongful monetary dealings and transactions with the customers of the branch of which the petitioner was Manager. The charges also relate to wrongful and unauthorised transfer of sums from the accounts of customers to his own S.B. Account. It also relates to a charge that with a view to obtain money for himself, obtained a cheque from the party and passed the same by allowing over draft and wrong fully obtained the payment thereof and utilised the same money to show in the books of the bank that an over draft had been allowed to the party. It also relates to charges of granting loans to various persons for purchase of second hand tempos in violation of the Rules and Regulations of the Bank. It further relates to a charge of sanctioning and disbursing the loan to Shri Chaturbhuj of Mandore in violation of Rules and Regulations and procedure of the Bank. The nature of the charges shows that they are based on documentary evidence and the starting of the departmental proceedings for such charges even in June, 1979 cannot be said by any stretch of imagination to be denial of principle of natural justice to the petitioner. 5. It was next contended by Mr. Calla that by starting the proceedings for departmental enquiry the petitioner is deprived of his right recognised under Article 20 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that clause (2) of Article 20 guarantees that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. 5. It was next contended by Mr. Calla that by starting the proceedings for departmental enquiry the petitioner is deprived of his right recognised under Article 20 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that clause (2) of Article 20 guarantees that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. We fail to under stand as to how the above provision can be of any help in a case of the present kind where only the departmental proceedings are being ititiated against the petitioner along with his prosecution in a criminal case. The above provision only gives a right to a person that he shall not be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. In order to apply the aforesaid provision, the following conditions are necessary: (a) There must have been a previous proceeding before a court of law or a judicial tribunal. (b) the person must have been prosecuted in the previous proceedings. (c) He must have been punished in the previous proceedings. (d) The offence which is subject matter of the second proceeding must be same as that of the first proceeding, for which he was prosecuted and punished. The bar provided by the above clause does not apply unless all the conditions are satisfied. Here both the proceedings are not before a court of law or a judicial Tribunal. The petitioner has not been punished so far in any previous proceedings. 6. In view of these circumstances, we do not find any force in any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the appeal is dismissed summarilyAppeal dismissed. *******