( 1 ) THE meaning and connotation of the expression "put on trial" with reference to the simultaneous continuation of Departmental and criminal proceedings has given birth to this judgment. The petitioner is an employee of the Punjab national Bank (respondent bank) and was last posted in the Rani Bagh Branch before the transfer to the regional Office, North Delhi. Soon thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension in March 1998 in contemplation of disciplinary action against him by the respondent.

( 2 ) THE Bank thereafter lodged an FIR under Sections 406/409/420/467/468/471/477-A/120~b of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 1 issued a charge sheet dated 8. 1. 2001 with the object to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and thereafter departmental enqury was constituted with respondent No. 2 as an enquiry officer. The petitioner took objection to the departmental proceedings in view of clause 19. 4 of the first Bipartite Settlement between the employees and the Management of the respondent bank. The said clause is as under "

"19. 4 If after steps have been taken to prosecute an employee or to get him prosecuted, for an offence, he is not put on trial within a year of the commission of the offence, the management may then deal with him as if he had committed an act of gross misconduct" or of "minor misconduct" as defined below; provided that if the authority which was to start prosecution proceedings refuses to do so or come to the conclusion that there is no case for prosecution it shall be open to the management to proceed against the employee under the provisions set out below in Clauses 19. 11 and 19. 12 infra relating to discharge, but he shall deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension, if any, and shall be entitled to the full wages and allowances and to all other privileges for such period. In the event of the management deciding, after enquiry, not to continue him in service, he shall be liable only for termination with. three months pay and allowances in lieu of notice as provided in Clause 19. 3 supra. If within the pendency of the proceedings thus instituted he is put on trial such proceedings shall be stayed pending the completion of trial after which the provisions mentioned in Clause 19. 3 above shall apply.

( 3 ) IT is thus apparent from the reading of the aforesaid clause that departmental proceedings may continue if an employee is not put on trial within a year of the commission of the offence. It is further provided that if within the pendency of the departmental, proceedings an employee is put on trial then such proceedings shall be stayed pending completion of trial.

( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid fact the only question to be considered is the meaning of the expression "put on trial" as used in para 19. 4 of the Bipartite settlement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since criminal proceedings have been initiated, the petitioner should be treated as having been put on trial . Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the expression "put on trial" means where a prosecution decide to put a person on trial. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent contends that the meaning of "put on trial" as used in clause 19. 4 is where charges are. framed against such person and till such time charges are framed the person cannot be stated to be put on trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the allahabad High Court; in Ram Jeet Vs. The State, AIR 1958 Allahabad 439 in support of his contention. Para 9 of the said judgment is as under:

"this is precisely what judicial opinion holds. A Division Bench of the calcutta High Court in Jiban Molla V. Emperor, AIR 1933 Cal 551 (B), held that the word "trial" has no fixed or universal meaning and must be construed with regard to the particular context in which is used and with regard to the scheme and purpose of th