JUDGMENT The necessary facts, in brief, are that the appel1ant who is an employee as Staff Accounts Clerk in the Bank of India, has been served with a charge-sheet dated 5.1.1994 on the ground, amongst others, that he opened a fictitious Savings Bank Account in the name of one customer, Shri Vinod Mishra and that he committed fraud in respect of a sum of Rs. 6,000/- credited in the name of the above person. There arc other charges of dereliction of duty and negligence of work. Pending the departmental enquiry, the petitioner has been placed under suspension. The appellant claims stay of the departmental enquiry by taking recourse to para 19.4 of the First Bipartite Settlement which governs the service conditions of the bank employees. The ground urged is that on some allegations and charges, a criminal case has been instituted against him and is pending trial before the criminal Court. The alleged offence of fraud is said to have been committed on 2lJ.11.1992. The first information report of the commission of the offence was Include by the above-named customer and FIR was lodged on 25.6.1993. A challan has been filed in the Criminal Court by the police on 24.9.1994. As the first step in the departmental enquiry, a charge-sheet has been served on the appellant by the Bank on 5.1.1994. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition holding that as the Bank has not started criminal prosecution, the provisions contained in para 19.4 of the Settlement cannot be resorted to by the employee for seeking Stay of the departmental proceedings. It has been held that in order to avail the provision of para 19.4, the prosecution and the departmental enquiry should both be at the instance of the Bank and it is not applicable where the criminal prosecution is instituted at the instance of a third party like the present one where the complaint itself has been made by the customer. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in not placing the correct interpretation on para 19.4 of the Settlement particularly the last part of it. It is argued that para 10.4 of the Settlement has to be read alongwith paras 19.2 and 19.5 which contains the complete procedure for taking disciplinary action under Chapter XIX of the Settlement. It is argued that para 10.4 of the Settlement has to be read alongwith paras 19.2 and 19.5 which contains the complete procedure for taking disciplinary action under Chapter XIX of the Settlement. Held: Reading the aforesaid three paras together, we find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge. For availaing provisions both of the first and second parts of para 19.4, the pre-condition is that steps to prosecute or to get the employee prosecuted should have been taken by the Bank. It Can have no application where the steps to prosecute or to get him prosecuted are taken by a third party such as a customer. The expression "Bank may take steps to prosecute him" or "get him prosecuted" both intend to convey the same meaning that some action is taken by a Bank to initiate the prosecution. The very purpose of the provisions contained in the above paragraph is that the Bank is not expected to wait indefinitely to proceed departmentally against its employee and to discharge him from service if a misconduct is found to have been committed by him. The provisions contained in para 19.4, read conjointly with other paras in Chapter XIX, bar simultaneous action on the part of the Bank to prosecute or get prosecuted its employee in criminal Court and at the same time, to proceed against him and punish him departmentally. For the aforesaid reason, we are of the opinion that the last part of para 19.4 also does not help the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant. There can be no prohibition on the Bank to proceed departmentally if the criminal case has been instituted by a third party on the same allegations. The trial in the criminal case has, no doubt, commenced after one year from the date of the commission of the offence. Yet, the departmental proceedings cannot be stayed under para 19.4 because the prosecution was not initiated by the Bank. AIR 1988 SC 2118 and 1993 (66) FLR 1038 distinguished. 1988 Lab IC 1441 relied all. Appeal dismissed.