The service rules were applicable to the appellant, a Medical Officer employed by the State Bank of India, and the departmental proceedings could proceed simultaneously with the pending criminal prosecution against him.

Dr. Prasanna Kumar Agarwal, the appellant herein, was the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 1786 of 1994 wherein he has challenged the order made on 17th November. 1989 (Annexure IX to the writ petition) suspending the petitioner from service, the show cause notice issued on 29th March, 1994 (Annexure XI) and the contemplated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, and he has sought for quashing the same in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reasons set out in the writ petition. Indeed, he has also sought for the above prayer in view of the pending criminal prosecution in the Special Case No.23 (C)/88. being considered in the Court of Special Judge, Assam. The petitioner has also sought for keeping in abeyance the departmental enquiry against him until the aforesaid criminal proceedings are disposed of.

2. There was an order of interim stay granted by the writ Court on 12th May. 1994 staying further proceedings of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner. However, after hearing learned counsel on both sides, the learned Single Judge of this Court by an order on 27th September, 1996 dismissed the writ petition and vacated the interim order of stay granted earlier. Hence this appeal by the writ petitioner.

3. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

4. A few facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows : It is not in dispute that pursuant to an advertisement calling for applications from the eligible applicants with a view to fill up the post of Medical Officer in the State Bank of India, Regional Office, Shillong, the appellant/petitioner was selected for the post of Medical Officer and by an order made on 20th July. 1983 (Annexure II) the appellant was appointed to the said post.

5. While so serving as Medical Officer in the State Bank of India, Regional Office. Shillong (hereinafter called, the Bank) on 30th January, 1987 a first information report was lodged with the Police having jurisdiction on the allegation that the petitioner having entered into a criminal conspiracy with the Chief General Manager, J.P. Jakhodia, cheated the Bank to the tune of Rs. 1,89,815.70 in the matter of purchase of medicines. A police case bearing No. RC 2/87 SHG was lodged by the CBI (as per Annexure VI). Later, by an order made on 25th November. 1989 (as per Annexure IX), the writ petitioner was suspended with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by t3ie criminal proceedings initiated against him in the above FIR. since the criminal Court having taken cognizance of the said offence of cheating, a petition under section 482 CrPC was filed before the Special Judge seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. It is stated that, that matter is still pending.

6. Pursuant to the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, by a letter dated 29th March, 1994 and 27th April, 1994 issued by the General Manager (Operations) of the Bank, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation within fifteen days. The petitioner prayed for keeping the departmental proceedings in abeyance since he has challenged the criminal prosecution before the competent Court. However, he was informed by the General Manager (Operations) that the points on which his explanation was sought for were not covered by the charges on which he was to be tried in the criminal case. Thus, he was again called upon to submit his explanation by a letter dated 27th April, 1994 (Annexure XIII).

7. The writ petitioner has taken a number of grounds to attack the impugned action against him, particularly, the departmental proceedings. This was opposed by the respondents by presenting a detailed counter affidavit by way of objections. Regard being had to the pleadings in the writ petition, the following five points were raised by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition :

(1) That the Service Rules, as referred to above, are not applicable to the Medical Officers of the Bank as the petitio