The nature of evidence and standard of proof in departmental proceedings and criminal cases are different, and certain charges may be suitable for departmental proceedings but not for criminal cases.

Ananda Sen, J.

This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed by the petitioner challenging the final order dated 20.5.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2439 of 2016.

2. The appellant/petitioner joined in State Bank of India, as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the year 1987 and was posted as Medium Enterprise Relationship Manager (MERM) at Commercial Branch, Bokaro for the period of 12.6.2006 to 08.12.2009.

3. On 28.7.2014 complaint was lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing, CBI, Ranchi alleging criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating in the matter of obtaining Cash Credit limit and term loans of various accounts on the basis of false and fabricated documents. Subsequently, five FIRs, being, R.C.8(S)/14, R.C.9(S)/14, R.C.10(S)/14, R.C.11(S)/14, R.C.12(S)/14 were registered by C.B.I for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant/petitioner was not named in these FIRs.

4. Subsequently, investigation was undertaken by the EWO, CBI, Ranchi and finally charge sheet was submitted in all five cases for offences under Sections 120B,419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Cognizance of the offence has been taken by the Special Court, CBI, Ranchi on 17.5.2016.

5. The respondent-Bank intended to proceed against the petitioner departmentally in a departmental proceeding for imposing major penalty in terms of Rule 68(1) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules. The petitioner was served with the departmental charge sheet dated 17.12.2015 issued by the Disciplinary Authority alleging that the petitioner “while he was posted as MERM at the Commercial Branch, Bokaro during the period from 12.6.2006 to 8.12.2009 he failed to discharge the duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner prejudicial to the Banks interest in violation of Rule 50(4) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules”.

6. The appellant-petitioner filed his reply to the charge sheet denying the allegation.

7. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No.2439 of 2016 praying to quash the entire departmental proceeding initiated, vide charge sheet dated 17.12.2015 on the ground that alleged charges are analogous and similar to the charges levelled against him in the pending criminal case. A mandamus was prayed to direct the respondents-Bank to stay the departmental proceeding as both the departmental proceeding and the criminal case arises out of the same fact.

8. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and after considering all aspects dismissed the writ application, which resulted in filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

9. We have heard Ms.Shruti Srestha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank and have gone through the record of the writ petition including the impugned order.

10. Ms.Shruti Srestha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that admittedly departmental proceeding is fall out of the action which is also the subject matter of the criminal case. She submits that out of the same transaction, both criminal case and the departmental proceeding has been initiated, thus, in the interest of justice, departmental proceeding is liable to be kept in abeyance till conclusion of the criminal case. She submits that if the petitioner is forced to appear and participate in the departmental proceeding, he has to disclose his defence which will prejudice him in the criminal trial. She relies upon following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of her case (i) State of Rajasthan vs. B.K.Meena and others (AIR 1997 SC 13), (ii) Surja Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 SC 18),(iii) Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and others [(1997) 2 SCC 699], (IV