Honble B.A. Zaidi, J.—The petitioner was a Branch Manager, in The Punjab and Sind Bank at Gadarian Purva Branch, Kanpur. He is said to have committed defalcation to the extent of around Rs. 67,00,000/-. He was consequently, suspended and an F.I.R. was lodged with the C.B.I. which has taken up the investigation. The petitioner assailed it in this writ petition and seeks the following reliefs :

(i) that his suspension was illegal because no departmental enquiry was ordered before his suspension.

(ii) that the suspension order of the petitioner be quashed because it was passed without departmental enquiry being ordered.

(iii) that the departmental enquiry needs to be quashed because C.B.I. enquiry is in progress and both cannot continue together; and

2. We have heard Sri Siddhartha Srivastava, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pramod Jain, Counsel appearing for respondents.

3. It was also contended that in the departmental enquiry, the Inquiry Officer has rejected the application of the petitioner by which he had applied for appointment of his representative and copies of relevant documents have not been furnished to him, but no relief on these two counts has been claimed in respect of these 2 matters. Therefore, it was hardly relevant to mention the same in the writ petition, and if there is any grouse on this score it has to be placed before the Inquiry Officer.

4. Coming to the 3 issues mentioned above and taking up for consideration the first one, it will be seen that no rule or regulation has been cited before us by the Counsel for the petitioner that no suspension can be ordered without enquiry being initiated. It was for the Counsel of the petitioner to show to the Court that order of suspension without ordering an enquiry is illegal and contrary to rules and regulations. This is an averment without proof. The Court is not aware of any general principle of law, nor has any case law, being cited in this regard, that no suspension, can be ordered without any enquiry been first initiated. The contention of the petitioner must, therefore, fail.

5. As regard to second contention of the petitioner this his suspension order be quashed because it was passed without departmental enquiry being ordered, it is again to be noticed that no Rule or Regulation has been referred by the Counsel for the petitioner and no case law has been referred to, in this regard. Moreover, a departmental enquiry has now been ordered, and is on way, as such, the deficiency has been made good and the plea of the petitioner that the suspension was made without a departmental enquiry being ordered is no more relevant, now. There is consequently no substance in this contention.

6. Now coming to the last and the main contention that the departmental enquiry needs to be quashed because C.B.I. enquiry is in progress, and since both rest on the same facts and evidence, they cannot go together, it is to be noted that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard is contained in the case of State Bank of India and others v. R.B. Sharma, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 27. The substance of the findings is contained in para 7 of this report which is as follows:—

“It is fairly well-settled position in law that on basic principles proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.”

7. In order to appreciate surrounding features and focus, it would be appropriate to quote further observations made in para 8 of the report made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

“The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violat