Judgment :- The petitioner, now working as Sub-Staff in the respondent-Canara Bank, being faced with departmental proceedings, seeks for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents from proceeding with the departmental proceedings dated 11.11.2002 pending finalisation of the Criminal Case in C.C.No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai. 2. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and the relief to be granted in the writ petition, it is not necessary to deal with the merits of the proceedings. It is sufficient only to state the following facts. 3. The petitioner was suspected of involvement in a serious misconduct of improper realisation of outstation cheques and allied misconduct, along with certain other individuals. Based on the Departmental Investigation Report, the Bank placed the Senior Manager, another Officer and the petitioner under suspension pending departmental enquiry. The Bank also lodged a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). The C.B.I. registered the First Information Report on 9.4.2002 and conducted an investigation into the complaint. 4. The Disciplinary Authority also framed a charge memo against the petitioner on 11.11.2002, on the basis of the Departmental Investigation Report and after appointing an Enquiry Officer, proceeded with the enquiry on different dates. The petitioner had examined four witnesses and marked 23 Exhibits and the Enquiry Officer has also submitted his report. 5. At this stage, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition and seeks for orders restraining the Bank from proceeding further. The said relief is sought for on the strength of Regulation 21 of Chapter XI of the Service Code applicable to the Canara Bank, in view of the fact that a criminal proceeding is pending on the same subject matter. While under normal circumstances, there is no bar on any Management to take departmental proceedings even during the pendency of criminal proceedings, the Regulations governing the respondent-Bank, contain certain features which require consideration. 6. Chapter XI deals with the disciplinary action and Regulation 21 is the relevant provision, which reads as follows: " 21(1) For the purpose of this Regulation the expression "offence" shall mean any offence involving moral turpitude for which an employee is liable to conviction and sentence under any provision of law. 6. Chapter XI deals with the disciplinary action and Regulation 21 is the relevant provision, which reads as follows: " 21(1) For the purpose of this Regulation the expression "offence" shall mean any offence involving moral turpitude for which an employee is liable to conviction and sentence under any provision of law. (2)(a) If in the opinion of the Deputy General Manager of Circle Office / International Division/ Inspection Department/ The Assistant General Manager of Personnel Wing, Head Office, any employee of the Bank has committed an offence, unless the employee be otherwise prosecuted, the Deputy General Manager of Circle Office/ International Division/ Inspection Department / The Assistant General Manager of Personnel Wing, Head Office, may either himself take steps to prosecute the employee or get him prosecuted or direct any officer of the Bank, competent to enquire into any misconduct of the said employee to take steps to prosecute the employee or get him prosecuted. (b) If in the opinion of a Branch Manager any employee working under him in his branch, office or department, as the case may be, has committed an offence, he shall at once report the matter to the Deputy General Manager of Circle Office/ International Division/ Inspection Department/ The Assistant General Manager of Personnel Wing, Head Office with full particulars. If it appears to the Deputy General Manager of Circle Office / International Division / Inspection Department/ The Assistant General Manager of Personnel Wing, Head Office, that there are prima facie grounds for the Branch Manager's opinion, he may, unless the employee be otherwise prosecuted direct the Branch Manager to take steps to prosecute the employee or get him prosecuted. (3) If on a prosecution instituted against an employee under clause (2) of this Regulation: (a) The employee is convicted, he may be dismissed with effect from the date of his conviction or be given any lesser punishment mentioned in Regulation 4 of this Chapter or be discharged as provided in Regulation 11 of this Chapter; (b) the employee is acquitted, it shall be open to the Deputy General manager of Circle office/ International Division/ Inspection Department/ The Assistant General Manager of Personnel Wing, Head Office, to proceed against him under the provisions set out herein above regarding misconducts. If after enquiry it is decided not to continue the employee in service, he shall be liable only for termination of service with three month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice; and he shall be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension, if any, and shall be entitled to full pay and allowances minus such subsistence allowance as he has drawn and all other privileges for the period of suspension. Provided that if the employee be acquitted by being given the benefit of doubt, he may be paid such portion of such pay and allowances as the Deputy General Manager of Circle Office/ International Division/ Inspection Department/ The Assistant General Manager of Personnel Wing, Head Office, may deem proper, and the period of his absence shall not be treated as period spent on duty unless the Deputy General Manager of Circle Office/ International Division/ Inspection Department/ The Assistant General Manager of Personnel Wing, Head Office, so directs. (4) For awarding punishment under sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of this Regulation no enquiry as prescribed by Regulations 7 and 9 of this Chapter shall be necessary. Any punishment under clause (3) of this Regulation shall be imposed only by the Executive Committee. If no punishment is proposed to be imposed, the committee shall pass an order to that effect. (5) If the employee prefers an appeal or revision application against his conviction and is acquitted on such appeal or revision, in case he has already been dealt with as above, he may apply within 2 months from the date of such acquittal to the Executive Committee for reconsideration of his case and the Executive Committee shall review his case and may either reinstate him or pass orders that he may be proceeded against as provided in sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of this Regulation. (6) If after steps have been taken to prosecute the employee under clause (2) of this Regulation he is not put on trial within a year of the commission of the offence, the employee may be dealt with as if he has committed an act of misconduct as defined in this Chapter provided that if the authority which was to start prosecution proceedings refuses to do so or comes to the conclusion that there is no case for prosecution, the employee may be proceeded against under the provisions of sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of this Regulation but he shall be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension, if any, and shall be entitled to full salary and allowances minus such subsistence allowance as he has drawn and to all other privileges for such period. If after enquiry it is decided not to continue the employee in service, he shall be liable only to termination with 3 months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice. Provided that if during the pendency of the enquiry the employee is put on trial the enquiry shall be stayed after which the provisions of clause (3) of this Regulation shall apply. Provided further that if the employee is put on trial after the conclusion of the enquiry but before the passing of the order thereon, the passing of the order shall be stayed after which the provisions of clause (3) of this Regulation shall apply. Provided further that if the employee is put on trial the conclusion of the enquiry and order thereon an appeal under Regulation 20, if one is pending, shall be stayed after which the provisions of clause (3) of this Regulation shall apply. " 7. Sub-Clauses (7) and (8) are omitted as unnecessary. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the departmental enquiry cannot be proceeded with in view of the above Regulations. To appreciate this contention, the following date particulars are relevant: (i) First Information Report before the C.B.I. - 9.4.2002; (ii) Charge Memo in the domestic enquiry – 11.11.2002; (iii) Criminal complaint before the Special Court for C.B.I. Cases – June, 2003. 9. To appreciate this contention, the following date particulars are relevant: (i) First Information Report before the C.B.I. - 9.4.2002; (ii) Charge Memo in the domestic enquiry – 11.11.2002; (iii) Criminal complaint before the Special Court for C.B.I. Cases – June, 2003. 9. A perusal of Regulation 21, and in particular, Regulation 21(6), discloses that while it is open to the Department to proceed with the departmental enquiry, if the employee is not put on trial within a period of one year of the commission of the misconduct, the provisos hold that if during the pendency of the enquiry an employee is put on trial, the enquiry shall be stayed, after which, the provisions of Clause (3) of Regulation 21 shall apply. The terms of the second proviso is that if the employee is put on trial after the conclusion of the enquiry but before passing the order, the passing of the order shall be stayed, after which, the provisions of Clause (3) will apply. The third proviso lays down the condition that if the employee is put on trial, the conclusion of the enquiry and order thereon in an appeal under Regulation 20, if such an appeal is pending, shall be stayed, after which, the provisions of Clause (3) will apply. 10. It is true that according to the Bank and as contended by Mr.Raman, learned counsel for the Management, the Bank was not aware of the prosecution of the investigation by the C.B.I. on the complaint lodged by the petitioner and the fact of the C.B.I. having filed the complaint before the Criminal Court. Nonetheless, the effect of the Regulations have to be properly considered. When once a criminal complaint is lodged before the Criminal Court, it has to be held that the process of the trial had commenced. If so, in terms of the above-mentioned three provisos, the stage of the enquiry proceeding has to be ascertained in order to assess the proviso which would actually apply to the facts of the case. 11. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that pursuant to the charge memo dated 11.11.2002, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and he had conducted enquiry on various dates and had also concluded the enquiry proceedings and submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority with a copy to the defence representative on 18.9.2003. 11. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that pursuant to the charge memo dated 11.11.2002, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and he had conducted enquiry on various dates and had also concluded the enquiry proceedings and submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority with a copy to the defence representative on 18.9.2003. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner not having raised any dispute during the pendency of the enquiry, cannot now attempt to stall the proceedings. At no point of time the petitioner had raised his objections on the strength of Regulation 21 and therefore, he cannot be now heard to keep the departmental proceedings pending indefinitely. 12. I am unable to sustain the said contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent. The regulations are enforceable by both parties and in terms of Regulation 21(6), the present position is that the enquiry has been completed and final orders have not been passed. It is only at that stage, the petitioner has approached this Court. The first proviso deals with the situation of pendency of the enquiry. The second proviso deals with the situation of conclusion of enquiry but before passing the order thereon. In the background of the facts stated above, it is only the second proviso which would apply. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report but the final orders of the Disciplinary Authority is yet to be passed. Therefore, in terms of the second proviso, the passing of the final order has to be stayed and it is only after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Criminal Court, further steps can be taken in terms of Regulation 21(3). In terms of Regulation 21(3)(a), if the employee is convicted, he may be dismissed from service. If he is acquitted, in terms of Regulation 21(3)(b), it will be open to the Management to proceed against him, as provided thereunder. At this stage, there is no other alternative except to order stay of further proceedings, as discussed above. With the result, in view of Regulation 21(6), the departmental proceedings have to be stayed and further proceedings could be continued only after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Criminal Court, as provided under the said Regulation. The writ petition is allowed, subject to the above observation. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No.738 of 2004 is closed.