IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Departmental Proceeding – Nature of proceedings being wholly separate and distinct, acquittal in criminal proceedings does not entitle delinquent employee for any benefit in latter or automatic discharge in departmental proceedings.
(2) Departmental proceeding pending criminal trial would not warrant an automatic stay unless a complicated question of law is involved – Also, acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto would not be tantamount to closure or culmination of proceedings in favour of a delinquent employee.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. The instant lis presents two questions for consideration by this Court. They are:

(a) Does clause 4 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April 2002 create a bar on departmental proceedings continuing when the person subjected thereto is being tried before a criminal court for offences of the same origin?

(b) Does acquittal in some of the connected proceedings entail a benefit in the surviving proceedings? Further, inuring a right upon the delinquent employee of automatic discharge in disciplinary proceedings?

2. This appeal, by way of special leave, is directed against the final judgment and order dated 7th January 2009 passed in Writ Appeal No. 03/2006 by which the order passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12 of 2005 dated 25th July 2005 allowing the appeal of the Respondent herein against the order of dismissal from bank services dated 28th March 2003 and the rejection of the departmental appeal vide order 16th August 2004, was allowed and the order of the Learned Single Judge confirmed.

Background

3. The facts of the instant dispute as they emanate from the record are:

3.1 The respondent namely P. Zadenga¹ [hereinafter referred to as “the delinquent employee”] was employed in the State Bank of India² [hereinafter, the “Appellant Bank”] as Assistant (CAT) at the Dawrpui Branch, Aizawl. Three government retailers lodged a complaint with the Aizawl Police Station that their challan- deposits with the said Branch had not been entered into the cash receipt scroll. The District Civil Supply Officer, Aizawl West, also lodged a complaint that a certain retailer had taken the delivery of particular food stuff using a fake challan.

3.2 Pursuant thereto, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent with the issuance of a Memorandum dated 8th December 1999, wherein it was alleged that he had received Rs. 61,908 for a deposit on 19th April, 1996 in respect of which a challan was issued, but the amount never deposited in the respective account. Two other similar occurrences dated 21st February 1995 regarding Rs. 24,640 and Rs. 27,412 were also alleged.

3.3 Three different FIRs stood registered against him, under which he was arrested but later released on bail. In his written show cause to this Memorandum, the Delinquent employee contended that the disciplinary proceedings should be either dropped or closed since criminal cases were pending him, arising from the same set of transactions.

3.4 The appellant-bank proceeded to appoint an inquiry officer who, in his report, submitted that three out of four charges stood established. The Delinquent Employee, again denying the charges, filed a response to that but was eventually dismissed from the services at the bank, vide the order of dismissal dated 28th March 2003. The departmental appeal filed by him, after due opportunity of hearing, was dismissed on 16th August 2004.

4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the departmental appeal, the delinquent employee filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12 of 2005 before the Gauhati High Court. The question before the said Court was: whether, in view of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April 2002³ [hereinafter referred to as “MoS” between the Management of 52 ‘A’ Class Banks as represented by the Indian Banks’ Association and their workmen as represented by the All India Bank Employees’ Association, National Confederation of Bank Employees, Indian National Bank Employees’ Federation] the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employee (respondent) herein ought to have been stayed or not.

5. Having recorded that post signing of the said MoS, the Shastri Award as confirmed by the Desai Award “ceased to exist for all intents and purposes” the Court observed that clause 4 of the said document was clear and unambiguous and, therefore, it was not correct for the bank to have subjected him to disciplinary proceeding during the pendency of criminal proceedings.

6. However, it would be open for the disciplina