JUDGMENT 1. - In this special appeal directed against the judgment dated 5th Nov., 1990 of the learned Single Judge of this Court (judgment reported in 1990(1) RLR 1481, the main point is about the interpretation of Rule 3.9 of the promotion policy, which reads as under:- "Officers in respect of whom disciplinary action is in process, will however, be permitted to take part in the promotion process subject to the condition that the promotion will be withheld until the completion of the disciplinary action. In the event of the officer being exhonerated, the promotion, if due, will be given effect to from the date on which it would have been otherwise effected but for the disciplinary action." The respondent, who is an officer in the Central Bank of India is governed by the Central Bank of India (Officers' Service) Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1979), made by the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of India in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, with the previous sanction of the Central Governments in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19 read with sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. Regulation 17 of the Regulations of 1979 provides for promotion. 2. The learned Single Judge has given all the dates in detail and for purposes of this appeal, we may refer to the important dates only. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide letter dated 5th July, 1979. Two memorandums were issued to the respondent, to which he submitted replies. The suspension order was withdrawn vide letter dated 16th Jan, 1980, after the respondent submitted the replies. From the letter withdrawing the suspension it is not very clear why the suspension was withdrawn, but apparently it was done after considering the replies of the respondent. It is an admitted position that an FIR was lodged in the year 1979 against certain officers including the respondent and challan was filed in the year 1982 and the criminal proceedings are still pending. The criminal case is still at the stage of framing of the charge. The case of the respondent was considered for promotion and vide Annexure-23 dated 11.1.1983 he was found suitable, but in view of the policy as laid down in Clause 3.9 actual promotion was not given to him. 3. The criminal case is still at the stage of framing of the charge. The case of the respondent was considered for promotion and vide Annexure-23 dated 11.1.1983 he was found suitable, but in view of the policy as laid down in Clause 3.9 actual promotion was not given to him. 3. As far as clause 3.9 of the Promotion Policy is concerned it only provides for withholding of promotion until the completion of the disciplinary action, it does not deal with the case where criminal proceedings are pending against the officer. So, the question to be decided is whether promotion can be withheld during the pendency of criminal proceedings and secondly whether in the present case disciplinary proceedings could be said to be pending against the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant Bank has contended, first of all that the promotion of the respondent was withheld in the year 1983 and he approached the Court as late as in December, 1989 when the writ petition was filed and the same should not have been entertained on account of delay. Secondly, it is contended that there is nothing on record to show that a decision was taken not to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and the withdrawal of suspension order would not automatically mean dropping of the departmental action. It is contended that the same was kept in abeyance due to pendency of criminal case in view of provisions contained in para 14.11. of Disciplinary Action procedure. 5. The learned Single Judge has referred to regulation 6(2) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 and clauses 4.1 to 4.3 of the Disciplinary Action Procedure. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the direction contained in Clause 4.1 is not applicable to officers. It is also contended that criminal proceedings stand on a higher footing than the disciplinary proceedings and the decision to withhold promotion during the pendency of criminal case cannot be said to be against the General Promotion Policy. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the direction contained in Clause 4.1 is not applicable to officers. It is also contended that criminal proceedings stand on a higher footing than the disciplinary proceedings and the decision to withhold promotion during the pendency of criminal case cannot be said to be against the General Promotion Policy. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that under Regulation 6(2) of the Regulations of 1976 a decision has to be taken to hold an enquiry and then the disciplinary authority has to frame definite and distinct charges under Regulation 6(3) and the same are to be communicated in writing to the officer/employee alongwith the statement of allegations, who has to submit a written statement of his defence. It is only when a charge-sheet is issued that it can be said that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. In this case while withdrawing the suspension order no such finding was recorded that the explanation of the officer was not acceptable and that it was necessary to hold an enquiry into the allegations. According to the learned counsel for the respondent putting disciplinary enquiry into obeyance does not amount to pendency of proceedings. Even the CBI which was investigating the criminal case had no objection if the Bank proceeded with departmental action, but inspite of that no action was taken by the Bank which according to the learned counsel for the respondent amounts to taking a decision that the disciplinary proceedings should be dropped. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a decision of the Patna High Court in Madan Mohan Tripathi v. Central Bank of India , wherein regulation 3.9 was considered and it was held that the disciplinary process starts upon the service of the charge-sheet on the delinquent officer. 8. In New Bank of India v. N.P. Sehgal and another (1991) 2 SCC 220 , it was held that promotion granted to bank officer while disciplinary proceedings were in contemplation pursuant to rules obliging the bank to grant promotion irrespective of any misconduct committed until initiation of departmental enquiry was valid. 9. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 , in para 10 it has been observed that the first stage of the enquiry can validly begin only after charge has been served on the delinquent public servant. 10. 9. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 , in para 10 it has been observed that the first stage of the enquiry can validly begin only after charge has been served on the delinquent public servant. 10. We have considered the contentions which have been raised on behalf of both the sides. We have no hesitation in saying that the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 meant for officers, do not provide for withholding of promotion during the pendency of a criminal case and unless a clause to this effect is inserted in Rule 3.9 of the Promotion Policy or any other provision, then the withholding of promotion on account of pendency of criminal cases would not be within the framework of the Rules. It is for the Bank to consider the amendment of the Rules so as to include this situation and the court cannot hold that the criminal case would be a part of disciplinary action. Considering the circumstances, the delay in approaching the court has been properly condoned. 11. The next question which arises is whether it could be said that the disicplinary action was taken against the respondent and the promotion could be withheld until the completion of the disciplinary action. No doubt the suspension order was revoked without any condition and there is no recording of the opinion that it was necessary to hold an enquiry. No charge sheet was issued, therefore it could not be said that the disciplinary process was in progress so as to withhold promotion. It may be observed here that there is nothing on record either to propose an enquiry or to drop the proceedings. Hence the disciplinary process cannot be said to be in progress, but at the same time the authorities are free to now take a decision. However, when the respondent was found suitable for promotion in the year 1983 there was no reason to withhold his promotion and he is entitled to get the same with all consequential benefits. We see no reason to differ with the learned Single Judge. This appeal has no force and is dismissed with the above observations.Appeal dismissed *******