K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. The two writ petitions challenge two separate enquiry proceedings which have different cause of action, but with slight interrelation. The writ petitions would have to be considered separately but in a common judgment since the actions of the petitioner which are alleged against her as misconducts have that inter connection.

2. W.P(C) No. 14756/2014 addresses the issue of whether a departmental enquiry could be continued when a criminal proceeding, on the very same set of facts, is pending before the Criminal Court. The facts which led to the disciplinary enquiry were that the respondent Bank,who was the employer of the petitioner detected serious latches in the grant of Agricultural Gold Loans(AGL), by the petitioner who officiated as Manager in one Edavanna Branch, to three persons, who were admittedly the petitioner's daughter, her sister-in-law and a relative, and on the security of spurious gold. The petitioner was suspended pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings, by Ext.P1, and a complaint seen at Ext.P2, was registered with the Sub Inspector of Police, Edavanna Police Station. The complaint was taken on file and FIR was registered as Ext.P3, alleging offenses under Sections 420, 409 read with 34 IPC and the same is said to be now pending as C.C No. 325/2013 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri.

3. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice on 20.07.2013 by Ext.P4, wherein it was alleged that one of the AGL's was sanctioned on 09.04.2012 when the petitioner was posted as Manager of Edavanna Branch between 2010 and 2012, the sanction and disbursal having been accorded to petitioner's sister- in-law. The two other loans were sanctioned and disbursed to her daughter and a relative, on 30.05.2013, when the petitioner was holding temporary charge of the Branch, between 29.05.2013 to 01.06.2013. A further memo was issued on 26.08.2013 produced as Ext.P5, wherein the petitioner, when working as Branch Manager at Edathala Branch on 3.1.2013, 19.2.2013, 28.03.2013 and 24.04.2013 sanctioned four loans; two to her daughter and two to her sister-in-law. The said loans were sanctioned as the Branch Manager, bypassing the accountant who has the authority to sanction such loans. It was also alleged that there were serious irregularities in the pledging of more than 112 AGL's amounting to Rs.91,87,750/- in the name of the petitioner's relatives.

4. The petitioner showed cause and but not satisfied with the explanation a charge sheet was issued by Ext.P7 dated 25.02.2014. The charges were with respect to the allegations leveled in Exts.P4 and P5 memo. The petitioner was admittedly allowed to join duty after revoking the suspension on 13.03.2014. To the charge sheet, the petitioner had given her further explanation at Ext.P10 after which an enquiry was ordered as per Ext.P11 dated 22.04.2014. The petitioner subsequent to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings filed two further explanations at Exts.P12 and P13 and requested that the domestic enquiry proceedings be kept in abeyance till the criminal case is concluded. The Enquiry Officer, however, proceeded with the enquiry on 23.05.2014, read over the charges to the petitioner and after recording her plea of not guilty, proceeded with the enquiry, posted it for further hearing on 08.07.2014. The petitioner then moved the above writ petition and obtained stay of the enquiry proceedings by order dated 16.06.2014.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge on the strength of precedents, that on the very same set of facts, a criminal proceeding has been initiated and the same was delayed only since the officer of the respondent Bank, who was the prime witness, who conducted the investigation, did not appear when summoned and the Court had to issue a bailable warrant and then a non-bailable warrant, which is evident from the report dated 28.02.2015 filed by the CJM, on the direction of this Court in the above wr