Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not bar disciplinary action; reopening of inquiry is valid if based on new findings.

ORDER :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent is filed by the original-petitioner challenging the oral judgment dated 08.08.2024. By the aforesaid oral judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition of the appellant wherein, the appellant had prayed for quashing and setting the order dated 24.07.2010 terminating the appellant from service from the date of dismissal i.e. 21.10.1990.

2. Heard Mr. P.A. Jadeja, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Counsel for M/s. Nanavati Associates for the respondents.

3. The facts in brief are as under:-

3.1. The appellant was employed with the respondent-Bank as a Shroff/Godown Keeper at the Dhoraji Branch. For certain misconducts, 8 in number, a charge-sheet dated 30.11.1988 was issued to the petitioner-appellant. The Inquiry proceeded as far as charges No.2 to 8 are concerned and an Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 15.04.1991. Pursuant to the report so submitted, a show cause notice was issued on 29.07.1991 as to why a penalty be not enforced. By an order dated 14.10.1991, a penalty of stoppage of two annual increments of pay with cumulative effect in terms of Clause 17.6(d) of the Bipartite Settlement was imposed. As far as charge No.1 is concerned which was in context of an incident dated 17.05.1988 of abusing one Sri S.A. Kanabar and assaulting him, since criminal proceedings were already initiated for offences under Section 506(2) and 332 of the Indian Penal Code the Inquiry Officer on request of the appellant-petitioner did not proceed further in context of that charge. The appellant was convicted by a judgment and order dated 22.09.1999 relying on Section 10(1) (b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and in terms of the Bipartite Settlement. Since the appellant was convicted an order of dismissal from service was passed on 21.10.1999.

3.2. The appellant petitioner challenged his conviction before the Competent Court and by judgment and order dated 07.01.2010, the appellant was acquitted. The Bank reopened the inquiry vis-a-vis charge No.1 and submitted a report dated 30.06.2010. By the report so submitted, the findings with regard to charge No.1 were held to be proved. A Show cause notice was issued on 01.07.2010 together with which a copy of Inquiry Officer’s report dated 30.06.2010 was filed and a copy of which was given to the appellant and a fresh order of dismissal dated 24.07.2010 was passed dismissing the petitioner from service.

4. Before the learned Single Judge, which submissions have been reiterated before us the order of dismissal was assailed by the learned Counsel Mr. P.A. Jadeja on the following grounds;

(i) Learned Counsel Mr. Jadeja for the appellant would submit that once an inquiry was conducted earlier for which a penalty of dismissal was not imposed and only an order of stoppage of two increments for future effect was passed, it was not open for the Bank to reopen the inquiry and pass a fresh order of penalty. This, in the opinion of the learned Counsel was barred by res judicata. He would submit that a second inquiry of the charges in question could not have been initiated and reopened after a period of more than 20 years.

(ii) Taking us to the show cause notice dated 01.07.2010 and the reply filed by the appellant to the show cause notice, learned Counsel Mr. Jadeja would submit that even the appellant delinquent was not given a chance of cross-examination or leading any evidence or examining any witnesses and therefore, apart from the inquiry procedure being held in violation of principles of natural justice, the charge could not have been held to be proved in absence of any evidence. Moreover, the order of dismissal passed with effect from 1991 was bad.

5. Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would support the or