IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that an acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude disciplinary action if misconduct is proven in a departmental inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) :

Heard Mr. D. C. K. Hazarika, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deuri, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2. However, none has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 9/Indian Bank authorities.

2. The challenge in the present proceeding is to an order, dated 10.03.2010, issued by the Assistant General Manager and disciplinary authority, Indian Bank, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner.

3. The facts, in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed, as under:

The petitioner, herein, was appointed as a Peon in Hatipukhuri Branch, Indian Bank, Nagaon, on 28.06.1985. The respondent No. 9, herein, had lodged a written complaint on 29.04.2008 with the respondent No. 8 i.e. Branch Manager of Hatipukhuri Branch, Indian Bank, Nagaon, alleging that Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) was withdrawn from his Bank Account without his knowledge. On the following day i.e. 30.04.2008, an amended compliant was also lodged, pertaining to the same issue.

As revealed from the materials brought on record, the said respondent No. 9 had also lodged an FIR on 02.05.2008 before the Rupahihat Police Station on the same issue. The police, on receipt of the said information; registered a case being Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 77/2008 u/ss. 468/420/406 of the IPC, against the petitioner, herein, and 2(two) other staff of Hatipukhuri Branch, Indian Bank, Nagaon.

The petitioner was taken into custody in connection with the said criminal case instituted against him. The petitioner having been detained in custody for more than 48 hours, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner proceeded vide communication, dated 08.05.2008, to place the petitioner under suspension. Thereafter, vide communication, dated 11.07.2008, the petitioner was required to submit his explanation on allegations so levelled against him by the respondent No. 9. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted his explanation in the matter vide communication, dated 27.07.2008, and therein, had denied the allegations so levelled against him.

Thereafter, being not satisfied with the explanation so submitted by the petitioner; vide the memorandum of charges, dated 31.12.2008, a departmental proceeding was so initiated against the petitioner and therein, 3(three) charges were so framed against him. The petitioner, on 23.02.2009, submitted his written statement in the matter and therein, denied the allegations levelled against him. The disciplinary authority of the petitioner not being satisfied with the written statement submitted by the petitioner in the matter, proceeded vide communication, dated 06.04.2009, to order a departmental inquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner vide the article of charges, noted hereinabove and accordingly, appointed an Inquiry Officer in the matter. The Inquiry Officer, on being appointed, conducted the inquiry and the petitioner, herein, participated in the inquiry. On conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report and therein, the article of charge No. 1 was held to be partially proved, while the article of charges No. 2 & 3 were held to be proved. The disciplinary authority on receipt of the said inquiry report, dated 30.09.2009, proceeded to forward the same to the petitioner along with a disagreement note, pertaining to the article of charge No. 1. It is to be noted that the disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer pertaining to the article of charges No. 2 & 3. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted his representation against the said inquiry report including the disagreement note.

Thereafter, on a consideration of the materials coming on record including the inquiry report as well as the representation submitted by the petitioner against the same; the disciplinary authority vide order, dated