The manual provided guidelines for operating the relevant regulation, and the respondent was entitled to all benefits he would have received if he had been on duty.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the Judgment of a Division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the writ appeal filed by the respondent.

( 3 ) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows: the respondent, who, at the relevant point of time was branch Manager of appellant No. l-Bank and was posted at nellore in Andhra Pradesh was charged and tried along with one Shrinivasulu s/o Chenchuramaiah for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 471 and 477 of Indian penal Code 1860 (in short the 'the IPC') and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the 'prevention of Corruption Act' ). Both the accused persons were tried in the Court of Special Judge for CBI cases. They were acquitted by judgment dated 11. 12. 2002 giving them benefit of doubt. The respondent was placed under suspension from 15. 06. 1988 till he was reinstated on 04. 05. 1993. After his reinstatement, departmental proceedings were initiated. The same were questioned by a writ petition being writ Petition No. 15797 of 1994 which was allowed by learned Single Judge. But in writ appeal No. 884 of 1998, a division Bench directed dismissal of the writ petition. The departmental enquiry was concluded on 29. 02. 2003. The respondent was found guilty. So far as payment of salary, allowances etc. are concerned, relevant portion of the order read as follows:

"in the light of the above punishment the undersigned further directs that Sri M. Venu ranganath will not be entitled to any salary and allowances and other attendant- benefits including increment for the period spent by him under suspension, save and except the subsistence Allowance already paid to him during the said period. "

3. The respondent filed writ petition being Writ Petition no. 11615 of 1994 claiming pay and allowances for the period of suspension which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. Respondent filed Writ Appeal No. 685 of 2004 which was allowed by the impugned order. It was inter-alia held by the division Bench that C1ause-22 of the applicable Manual i. e. A manual on Disciplinary Action and Related Matters of UCO bank governed the case and not Regulation 15 (2) of the United commercial Bank (Conduct and Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the appellants, the division Bench was not justified in holding that Clause 22 (8)of the Manual was to operate and not Regulation 15 (2) of the regulation. It is stated that the Manual is nothing but guidelines inducted and at the most, may be termed as executive Instructions. The Regulations are statutory in mature.

( 5 ) IT is pointed out that acquittal in a criminal case has nothing to do with departmental proceedings and law is clearly well settled. Notwithstanding acquittal in a criminal case, departmental proceedings can be initiated and/or continued.

( 6 ) IN response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the factual position shows that the only time respondent was placed under suspension was because of the criminal case under Regulation 12 (1) (b ). Even though departmental proceedings were initiated, the respondent was never placed under suspension. According to her, the case covered by Regulation 15 (2) relates to cases not covered by sub-Regulation (1 ).

( 7 ) THERE can be no doubt that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings operate in different fields. Even though the person may have been acquitted in a criminal trial, there is no embargo on his being departmentally proceeded against. But the question here is slightly different. The relevant provisions need to be quoted:

"11. Special procedure in certain cases: notwithstanding anything contained in regulation 6 or regulation 7 or regulation 8 the disciplinary Authority may impose any of the penalties specified in regulation 4 if the officer/employee has been convicted on a criminal charge, or on the strength of facts or c