Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26-3-2001 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the review application filed by the appellant for review of the order date 16-1-1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11923 of 1995, whereby the learned single Judge has ordered that the respondent employee of the appellant bank is entitled to payment of full salary for a period of suspension exceeding one year. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondent Vidya Bhushan Prasad was employed as Clerk in Canara Bank. The Bank found that he had illegally/fraudulently withdrawn Rs. 4,53,068 from the Bank and accordingly on 31st May, 1993 he was put under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceeding. On 30th June, 1993 the Central Bureau of Investigation registered First Information Report with regard to the aforesaid fraudulent withdrawal of the amount under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the Bank decided not to proceed with the departmental proceeding against the respondent during the pendency of the criminal case. 4. During the pendency of the case, the respondent was being paid subsistence allowances to the extent of one half of the salary. The period of suspension of the respondent having continued beyond one year, he filed aforesaid writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 11923 of 1995 for payment of full salary during the period of suspension in terms of the provisions contained in Sastry Award adopted by the Bank as well as relevant rules framed by the Bank in terms of the Sastry Award and Desai Award. 5. Learned single Judge by order dated 16-1-1997, as stated above, allowed the aforesaid prayer in terms of Sastry Award. There was also direction of this Court to dispose of the criminal case and now the criminal case has been disposed of and the respondent has been convicted and dismissed from service. The respondent has challenged his conviction before this Court by filing an appeal which is pending for disposal. 6. There was also direction of this Court to dispose of the criminal case and now the criminal case has been disposed of and the respondent has been convicted and dismissed from service. The respondent has challenged his conviction before this Court by filing an appeal which is pending for disposal. 6. The Bank having noticed that the enquiry in the case of the respondent was conducted by the outside agency and not by the Bank and as such he was not entitled to full salary during the period of his suspension exceeding one year, filed review application which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge solely on the ground that the facts were known to the Bank when the matter was disposed of and as such on that ground review application cannot be allowed. 7. Law with regard to scope of review is well settled. Review can be allowed only when there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter or evidence which was not within the knowledge of the party concerned or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was passed or for any other similar reason. 8. It is an admitted position that payment of subsistence allowance during the suspension period is governed by Sastry Award. Para-557 of Chapter-XXX of the Sastry Award deals with the payment of subsistence allowances, 9. From perusal of the said provision, it is clear that for the first three months the workman in case of suspension is entitled to one-third of pay and allowances and thereafter if the enquiry is conducted by the Bank he is entitled to one-half of the pay and allowances for the succeeding months and after expiry of one year he is entitled to full salary. In case the enquiry is by an outside agency, one-third of the pay and allowances for the next three months and thereafter one-half for the succeeding months until the enquiry is over. Thus, when the enquiry is conducted by an agency other than the Bank, the workman is entitled to only one-half of the pay and allowances till the enquiry is over. 10. Simialr provision is contained in the regulation of the Bank also. Thus, when the enquiry is conducted by an agency other than the Bank, the workman is entitled to only one-half of the pay and allowances till the enquiry is over. 10. Simialr provision is contained in the regulation of the Bank also. The only addition in the regulation of the Bank is that when the investigation is done by an outside agency and the said agency has come to the conclusion not to prosecute the employee, then the employee is entitled to full pay and allowances after six months from the date of receipt of the report of such agency or one year after suspension whichever is later and in the event the enquiry is not delayed for reasons attributable to the workman or any of his representative. 11. Admittedly, in this case enquiry has been conducted by an outside agency, i.e. Central Bureau of Investigation and tried by the criminal Court. In that view of the matter the provision of Sastry Award dealing with suspension matter where enquiry is conducted by an outside agency is applicable and according to that the workman is entitled to only one-half of the salary till the enquiry is over. Thus, there was error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier order passed by the learned single Judge directing for payment of full salary. In this case, though we have found that in terms of the Sastry Award the respondent was not entitled to more than one half of the pay and allowances during the suspense on period, taking into consideration the fact that the payment has already been made to the respondent and a statement has been made on behalf of the Bank that the appellant Bank will not take any steps for recovery of the same, no direction is required for refund of the amount. 12. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal stands disposed of.