The legal principle established is that the pendency of a criminal case does not automatically warrant a stay of departmental proceedings, and the decision should consider the nature of charges and evidence in both proceedings and the existence of complicated questions of law.

S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) WHETHER pendency of a criminal case by itself would be a sufficient ground for stay of the departmental proceedings is the principal question which arises for our consideration in this case.

( 3 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

( 4 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 herein are the office bearers of the All India indian Overseas Bank SC/st Employees' Welfare Association. Indisputably another association was also operating in the establishment of the appellant known as All India Indian Overseas bank Employees' Union of which respondent No. 5 is the President. Registration of similar names gave rise to a dispute between the parties.

( 5 ) INDISPUTABLY a first information report was lodged on 27th january, 2005 with the "thousand Lights Police Station, Chennai" alleging that L. Balasubramanian, Respondent No. 5, herein was assaulted on 27th January, 2005 at about 12. 35 p. m. within the bank premises by Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 as well as by Mr. P. Rajalingam, the Deputy Chief Officer working in the Regional Office of the appellant-bank. All the respondents are indisputably employees of the bank. Their designations are as under :-

(a) Respondent No. 1 (P. Ganesan) is employed as assistant Manager, Thiruvottiyur Market Branch. . He is also the General Secretary of All India Indian Overseas bank SC/st Employees' Welfare Association. (b) Respondent No. 2 (S. Vijayakumar) is employed as a clerk in the Central Clearing Office at Chennai. He is also the Vice President of the All India Indian Overseas bank SC/st Employees' Welfare Association. (c) Respondent No. 3 (R Amalraj) is employed as a messenger in the Inspection Department, Central Office at Chennai. He is also the Organizing Secretary of the all India Indian Overseas Bank SC/st Employees' welfare Association. (d) Respondent No. 4 (A. Dakshinamoorthy) is employed as an Assistant Manager in the Walltax Road branch, Chennai. He is also the Deputy General secretary of the All India Indian Overseas Bank SC/st employees' Welfare Association. (e) Respondent No. 5 (L. Balasubramanian) is employed as "special Assistant" in Foreign Exchange department, Central Office at Chennai. He is also the president of All India Indian Overseas Bank Employees' union (AIOBEU) as well as the President of the National confederation of Bank Employees (NCBE)".

( 6 ) AN enquiry was conducted leading to discovery of certain additional facts. It may not be necessary for us to take note of the same at this stage. Respondent No. 5 was admitted in the National hospital for medical treatment. He remained confined therein for a period of twelve days. A charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating officer in the criminal case against Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 under sections 341, 323, 324, 427, 307 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal code. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 were arrested. They were, however, released on bail on 15th February, 2005. Respondents Nos. 2 and 4, however, absconded. On or about 15th February, 2005 they obtained anticipatory bail. Another first information was lodged by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 against respondent No. 5 in the said Thousand lights Police Station, Chennai.

( 7 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 4 were placed under suspension by the appellant-bank by an order dated 28th January, 2005. Charge-sheets dated 21st February, 2005 were also served upon them. They were asked to show cause as to why disciplinary action be not taken against them for their acts of indiscipline, insubordination, unruly and disorderly behaviour, use of filthy language and most shameful abuses as well as murderous assault on respondent No. 5 within the office premises of the bank as also causing damage to valuable properties and serious impairment to the bank's prestige and reputation in the estimation of public at large. Requests were made by the said respondents to revoke the order of suspension by an application dated 9th March, 2005 assuring the authority that they would fully coope