Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.
1. The petitioner, in this application, is one Debi Prosad Roy. He is an officer employed by the United Commercial Bank. In this application, he is asking the Court to proceed against three respondents for the contempt of this Court alleged to have been committed by them. The alleged act of contempt is said to be in the act of proceeding with domestic enquiry while Suit No. 110 of 1977 is pending in this Court. It appears that respondents are proceeding against' the petitioner and others in a domestic enquiry in respect of two charge sheets, one being dated 10th Feb. 1977 and another dated 9th May, 1977.
2. So far as the charge sheet dated 10th Feb. 1977 is concerned, it is cleer that the same is not the subject-matter of the pending suit in this Court, being Suit No. 110 of 1977. Therefore, it must be held that in proceeding with charge sheet dated 10th Feb. 1977 there has been no act of contempt.
3. So far as the charge sheet dated 9th May, 1977 is concerned, the same is based' on alleged violation of the Rules of Employment by the employee concerned, on several dates, viz. 22nd and 28th Feb. 1977 and again on 2nd, 3rd and 4th March, 1977.
4. It appears that in the said charge sheet dated 9th May. 1977, the petitioner has been charged with violation of the Rules of Conduct of the Bank Employees and thereby committed violation of the Rules of Employment. In the meantime, the respondent, United Commercial Bank, has instituted a suit in this Court in March, 1977 making several employees including the petitioner as defendants on the allegations that they have committed acts of conspiracy and created nuisance in the business premises of the plaintiff Bank. In that suit, the plaintiff proceeds with the cause of action in tort in conspiracy and nuisance. In the departmental proceedings initiated by the charge sheet dated 9th May, 1977, the plaintiff Bank proceeds against the employees for violation of the Rules of Employment. It is alleged that in proceeding with the departmental enquiry the plaintiff Bank has thereby committed an act of contempt of this Court and has exposed the petitioner to what the learned advocate has described as 'double jeopardy'. There is no rule of law which prohibits domestic enquiry which requires investigation into certain facts which facts are relevant also in the proceedings in Court. This principle is well-settled by decisions. Reference in this connection may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of K.T. Chandy v. M.R. Jardi : 1974CriLJ594 . Reliance may also be placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of T.G. Waker V.N.L. Sukla : 1968CriLJ1234 . In the case of Gokulananda Roy v. Tarapada Mukherjee : AIR1973Cal233 . this Court held that where a commission of enquiry had been appointed to enquire Into matters of public importance there would not be any contempt of Court even though the matters which would be enquired into by the enquiry commission were the same as those which were pending in a litigation before the civil or criminal court. Having regard to the allegations, in my opinion, it is clear that there is no contempt of Court as such in proceeding with the domestic enquiry. Therefore, I am not inclined to issue any Rule, as prayed for by the petitioner.
5. It has been further alleged that this enquiry will put the petitioner into 'double jeopardy' and cause injustice. As mentioned before, the causes of actions in the two proceedings are different, although some common facts may arise for determination. No question of double jeopardy arises in this case. But if after domestic enquiry action is taken against the petititioner then some injustice may result to the petitioner in the prosecution of this suit. Though there is no specific prayer for injunction against the domestic enquiry as such in this application in my opinion, therefore, the justice of the situation would be met by direct-Ing, as I have done previously, that the domestic enquiry may be held but no final order should be passed by the Bank on that enquiry until the disposal of the suit or until further orders of this Court. The plaintiff Bank will, however, be at liberty to take steps for early hearing of the suit.
6. Costs will be cost in the suit.