In cases where there is concurrent jurisdiction between the civil court and the arbitrator, the civil court is the better judge of the issue of negligence and parallel enquiry into the same issue by two different authorities is inappropriate and likely to cause prejudice to the person concerned.

MADHAVA REDDY, ACTG. C. J.

( 1 ) W. A. No. 967/82 is filed on 8-11-1982 by the chittoor co-operative Town Bank Ltd. Against the Judgment of our learned brother Raghuvir, J. Dated 9-9-1982 in W. P. No. 6164/82 directing the deputy Registrar. Who is appointed as Arbitrator to adjudicate the liability of the Ist respondent therein and to pass an award to proceed with the enquiry, prepare an award but not pronounce it till the disposal of the civil suit O. s. No. 1011/81 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif. Chittor.

( 2 ) THE writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage after hearing the learned Government pleader but not the bank. The writ petitioner, at whose instance the above direction was issued, has also filed "cross writ appeal on 30-11-1982 which was numbered as W. A. No. 1093/82.

( 3 ) THE few facts necessary to appreciate the contentions raised in these matters may be briefly noticed. It would be convenient to refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the writ petition. The writ petitioner entered the service of the chittoor co-operative Town Bank Ltd. Ist respondent in the writ petition in the year 1942 and has been working as Jewel apprasiser from 1974 on 3-3-1980 at 0-9-45 Hrs. When he was valuing jewels, in the discharge of his duties as appraiser within the Bank premises in the presence of one of the customers, who had offered his jewels for pledge, a miscreant entered the premises and snatched away five bags containing jewels from the iron safe. When an alarm was raised by the petitioner and others the gates of the bank were closed but the miscreants managed to escape Immediately without losing any time. A written report was given to the secretary of the Ist respondent Bank and on the same day the assistant secretary who was in charge as secretary sent a complaint to the 1 Town police station, Chittoor giving the details of the theft. On the same day the Ist respondent bank issued a memo to the writ petitioner calling upon him to submit a detailed explanation as to circumstances in which the theft had occurred. The writ petitioner gave a detailed explanation on 19-3-1980 setting forth all the circumstances. No further action was taken against the writ petitioner for almost one year and nine months. On 22-12-1981 a memo placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into the matter was issued tot he petitioner. Thereupon the writ petitioner filed a suit O. S. 1011/79 in the Court of the first Additional District Munsif chittor for a declaration that the proceeding of the Ist respondent dated 22-12-1981 suspending him from service were illegal and null and void. He also sought an interim mandatory injunction sought an interim mandatory injunction directing the Ist respondent to reinstate him in service in I. A. No. 2074/81. The learned First additional District Munsif granted an interim mandatory injunction prayed for on 28-12-1981 and the writ petitioner was reinstated in service. That order was made absolute on 21-1-1982 after hearing the Ist respondent Bank Aggrieved by that order. The Bank filed two civil Miscellaneous appeals. C. M. A. Nos. 23 and 24 of 1982 in the Court of the District Judge chittor, which are pending disposal. While so on 8-3-1982 the Bank issued a notice to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the theft which had occurred on account of his negligence and why the loss occasioned to it should not be recovered form him. The writ petitioner submitted his explanation on 12-3-1982 denying the proceeding that the theft was not the result of any negligence on his part. However the bank filed a claim petition 21/81-82 and the same was referred to the deputy Registrar of co-operative societies, 2nd respondent herein who was appointed as an Arbitrator. In that petition the Bank laid a claim for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 26, 834. 00 from the writ petitioner simultaneously it also filed E. P. 1/82 under Sec. 73 of the A. P. Co-operati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document