Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 718
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
P. NAVEEN RAO, J.
K.S. Brahmananda Rao – Appellant
Versus
State bank of India Rep by its General Manager & Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 39248 of 2015
Decided on : 11-12-2015
For the Petitioner:Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents:B.S. Prasad, Advocate.
Headnote:
Criminal law - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 161 – Convicted - guilty - Acquitted in criminal case - Petitioner challenges continuation of disciplinary proceedings commenced in pursuant to issuance of charge memo on ground that on same set of facts and evidence was acquitted in criminal case - Facts which are relevant for purpose of deciding the issue in this writ petition are a While petitioner was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in East Godavari District petitioner was served with a charge memo dated various allegations - Substance of allegations is having received cash from depositor he did not remit amount to concerned account made fictitious credit entries in ledger transactions sheet illegally credited draft of a customer into joint account of petitioner and his mother on day cash was received from customer same was not debited immediately debited savings bank withdrawals from his mother account even though there is no sufficient cash balance - On various allegations which also form part of charge memo crime was registered against petitioner police station - On investigation police filed charge sheet in Additional First Class Magistrate by judgment pronounced convicted and sentenced the petitioner on charges level against him - In Criminal Appeal Additional District and Sessions Judge, confirmed conviction and sentence – Held, In Criminal Revision this Court therefore was of the view that Courts below had failed to appreciate evidence in proper perspective and had failed to give cogent and convincing reasons in support of findings recorded while overruling contentions of accused in case employees were Armed Reserve constables - They were implicated in criminal case on charge of committing murder - In criminal case they were acquitted honourably charges level against appellants in departmental proceedings were same - Having regard to honourable acquittal in criminal case Supreme Court held findings recorded in departmental proceedings resulting in dismissal from service as illegal said decision do not come to aid of petitioner material evidence which was discarded in criminal Court to hold petitioner as not guilty can still be looked into in departmental proceedings - This Court is not elaborating on nature of evidence that can be looked into in departmental proceedings as it may prejudice case of petitioner - Suffice it to note that it cannot be said that acquittal was honourable warranting setting aside disciplinary action only on ground of acquittal in criminal case moreover even before disciplinary action is concluded – Writ petition dismissed
Oral Order:
1. In this writ petition, petitioner challenges continuation of the disciplinary proceedings commenced in pursuant to issuance of charge memo dated 29.6.2004 on the ground that on the same set of facts and evidence, he was acquitted in criminal case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent bank.
3. Facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue in this writ petition are as under: While petitioner was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Komaragiripatnam, Allavaram mandal, East Godavari District, petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 29.6.2004 leveling various allegations. Substance of the allegations is, having received the cash from the depositor, he did not remit the amount to the concerned account; made fictitious credit entries in the ledger transactions sheet; illegally credited the draft of a customer into the joint account of the petitioner and his mother; on the day cash was received from the customer, same was not debited immediately; debited savings bank withdrawals from his mother account even though there is no sufficient cash balance.
4. On various allegations, which also form part of the charge memo dated 29.6.2004, crime No. 34 of 2002 was registered against the petitioner in Allavaram police station. On investigation, police filed charge sheet. In C.C. No. 34 of 2002, the Additional First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram by judgment pronounced on 23.6.2006 convicted and sentenced the petitioner on the charges leveled against him. In Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2006, the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, E ast Godavari at Amalapuram confirmed the conviction and sentence.
5. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the first Appellate Court by preferring Criminal Revision Case No. 73 of 2008 before this Court. This Court by judgment dated 27.2.2015 allowed the Criminal Revision by setting aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the petitioner of the charges alleged against him.
6. Petitioner filed W P No. 12907 of 2004 challenging the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, pending criminal proceedings. This Court by order dated 14th September, 2004 made in WPMP No. 16478 of 2004 stayed the disciplinary proceedings in respect of charges which are similar to the charges in C.C. No. 341 of 2002 and granted liberty to disciplinary authority to proceed in respect of other charges. However, entire departmental proceedings were kept in abeyance.
7. Based on conviction, petitioner was dismissed from service by proceedings dated 14.7.2006. As a consequence to setting aside the conviction and sentence, petitioner was reinstated into service by proceedings dated 23.9.2015. In the same proceedings, respondent bank informed the petitioner that bank reserves right to proceed with the disciplinary action as already initiated. Petitioner was also informed that the period of absence from service from the date of dismissal and date of reinstatement would be decided in disciplinary proceedings. Notice dated 23.10.2015 was issued directing the petitioner to appear before the enquiry officer. Petitioner assails the further continuation of the disciplinary proceedings in this writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the charges leveled against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings as well as in the criminal proceedings are on same set of facts and the allegations are also same and since petitioner is now acquitted of the charges leveled against him by this Court in the Criminal Revision Case filed by him, disciplinary proceedings are not maintainable. Without appreciating the legal position on the maintainability of the disciplinary proceedings, as a consequence to setting aside of the charges leveled against him in the criminal proceedings, the disciplinary authority illegally decided to continue the disciplinary proceedings, which amounts to total
