A legal question of some importance arises here and there may be a need to buck the recent trend of staying departmental proceedings pending criminal trials founded on similar allegations.

The petitioner was the branch manager of the Dhaniakhali Branch of the respondent bank. In his usual course of duties, the petitioner sanctioned loans by way of Kissan Credit Cards to several perceived farmers qualified to receive such credit facilities. Most of these loans were sanctioned in the years 2011-2013. By a notice of July 21, 2015, the bank required the petitioner to respond to the articles of charge enclosed with the covering letter of such date as the bank had decided to initiate disciplinary action with a major penalty against the petitioner in accordance with the bank’s service rules. The substance of the charges against the petitioner was that he had “committed serious irregularities and grave lapses, misused his official powers by giving substantial enhancements of limits in quick successions, allowed misappropriation of bank’s funds, (was) instrumental in defrauding the bank by cheating and forgery in connivance with outsiders and exposed the Bank to huge financial loss to the tune of around Rs.9.75 crores.”

The petitioner responded to the individual charges by a 27-page response of September 4, 2015. The petitioner dealt with the several matters particularised in the bank’s charge-sheet, by prefacing his reply with the submission that the allegations levelled against him were stale and that on the self-same charges the petitioner had been implicated in a criminal case which was pending.

The bank lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the appropriate police authorities on November 28, 2014 which has resulted in a charge-sheet being filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Court, Hooghly on May 31, 2015 indicating possible offences under Sections 420/406/109/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner says that since it would be evident from the provisions of the Penal Code invoked against the petitioner that the charges in the criminal proceedings are identical to those in the departmental action, it would not be desirable for the petitioner to disclose his defence or face the disciplinary proceedings before the conclusion of the criminal trial. The petitioner refers to several judgments beginning the one reported at 1999(3) SCC 679 (Capt.M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.) and some later decisions relying on the principle enunciated in Paul Anthony. According to the petitioner, in every case where the charges levelled are similar or identical, the departmental proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome in the criminal trial. In particular, the petitioner relies on the second of the several grounds noticed at paragraph 22 of Paul Anthony to suggest that the same would be attracted in the instant case:

“22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are:

i) …

ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. … ”

In tune with the sentiment echoed in Paul Anthony, the petitioner has referred to a Division Bench judgment reported at 2004(4) CHN 376 (Jayati Banerjee v. United Bank of India) where the second clause of paragraph 22 of Paul Anthony was paraphrased to make it applicable in that case. The petitioner has also carried a Single Bench judgment reported at 2014(1) CHN 399 (Firoz Ahmed v. Union of India) and a Division Bench judgment reported at 2014(3) CHN 198 (Balai Kumar Sanfui v. State of West Bengal).

The bank opposes the prayer for delaying the departmental proceedings on the ground that the criminal trial may take long as 30 witnesses