IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Sanat Kumar Chakraborty, son of Late Dwijendra Nath Chakraborty – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
W.P.(S) No.6077 of 2022
Decided on : 03-04-2023
Acquittal - Departmental Proceeding - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 4(6)(a) - The court discussed the relevance of acquittal in a criminal case to the punishment imposed in a departmental proceeding. It highlighted the legal provisions of simultaneous continuation of departmental and criminal proceedings, the nature of charges, and the impact of acquittal on the departmental proceeding. The court emphasized that acquittal in a criminal case does not vitiate the departmental proceeding and does not confer any right to claim benefits. It also upheld the authority's decision to forfeit the gratuity under Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of State Bank of India, was dismissed from service and had his gratuity forfeited due to charges of willful omission causing loss to the bank. He was acquitted in a criminal case based on similar allegations. The petitioner sought disbursement of the gratuity based on the acquittal, challenging the rejection of his claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquittal in the criminal case did not affect the decision taken by the disciplinary authority in the departmental proceeding. It emphasized that the parameters to judge the offense in the departmental proceeding are different from those in the criminal case. The court also upheld the authority's decision to forfeit the gratuity under Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Issues: The issues revolved around the relevance of acquittal in a criminal case to the punishment imposed in a departmental proceeding and the authority's decision to forfeit the gratuity under Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that acquittal in a criminal case does not vitiate the departmental proceeding and does not confer any right to claim benefits. It emphasized the different parameters for judging the offense in the departmental proceeding and upheld the authority's decision to forfeit the gratuity under Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the petitioner's claim for disbursement of the gratuity based on the acquittal in the criminal case and affirming the authority's decision to forfeit the gratuity under Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
JUDGMENT :
This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.6.2022 passed by the Assistant General Manager (PPG), Local Head Office, Patna whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for release of salary, provident fund and gratuity has been rejected on the ground that acquittal in the criminal case is having no bearing with the order of punishment inflicted upon the delinquent employee on conclusion of the departmental proceeding initiated under the applicable Conduct Rule.
2. The brief fact of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, reads hereunder as :-
The petitioner was working on the post of Accountant at State Bank of India, Jharia Branch, Jharia, Dhanbad. At the fag end of his service career, four criminal cases were registered against the petitioner being (a) Chirkunda P.S. Case no.251 of 2006 dated 17.11.2006 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 & 477A of the Indian Penal Code; (b) Chirkunda P.s. Case no.252 of 2006 dated 27.11.2006 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 & 477A of the Indian Penal Code; (c) Chirkunda (Panchet) P.S. Case no.239 of 2006 dated 5.11.2006 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 477 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code; and (d) Jharia P.S. Case no.411 of 2006 dated 23.11.2006 under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 & 477A of the Indian Penal Code.
All aforesaid four cases were registered with more or less similar allegation, alleging, inter alia, that a written report was made by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chirkunda Branch to the Officer-in-charge of Chirkunda police station on 27.11.2006 to the effect that during the period of posting of the petitioner for the period from 26.2.2004 to 8.5.2004 at the said branch, he fraudulently withdrew an amount of total Rs.3,16,089/- from the internal account of the bank and deposited the same in his account as well as in the account of his close persons which was admitted by him before the competent authority.
The further allegation is that besides the above, the petitioner fraudulently withdrew Rs.4,82,000/- from the internal account of Basanti Mata Colliery Branch and deposited the same in the account of Bandana Chakraborty bearing S.B. A/c. No.01190006379.
It is the further case of the petitioner that for the same set of facts and on the basis of registration of the aforesaid first information reports, departmental proceeding was initiated against him. In the said departmental proceeding, memo of charge was served upon the petitioner vide letter no.DGM/DPS/R/Gen/106 dated 28.5.2008, alleging that while the petitioner was posted at Kumardhubi, Jharia Bazar, Chirkunda and Basantimata Colliery branches, the petitioner acted in violation of Rule 50(4) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules.
On completion of enquiry, enquiry report was submitted, a copy of which was served upon the petitioner vide Letter no.DGM/DPS/R/Gen/614 dated 13.2.2009, directing to submit his submission within 15 days from the date of receipt of the report failing which the petitioner has no submission to offer and the respondent-bank would proceed further in the matter.
Thereafter, the General Manager (Network-II) & Appointing Authority, State Bank of India, Gandhi Maidan, Patna Respondent no.2 passed speaking order, whereby the gratuity amount of the petitioner has been forfeited under Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act in its entirety due to loss of Rs.10,53,659.12 suffered by the Bank. The said speaking order was communicated to the petitioner vide letter No.VIG/GEN/KD/12 dated 28.4.2009.
In terms of the order passed by the appointing authority, the amount of salary, provident fund and gratuity was withheld.
Thereafter, the petitioner made a request before the respondent authorities for release of the withheld back salary, provident fund and gratuity along with all incidental increments and benefits available to an employee by filing a representatio
Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679
Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. Vrs. S. Samuthiram
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque
Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh
Nagendra Nath v. Commr. Of Hills Division
Acquittal in a criminal case does not affect the decision taken by the disciplinary authority in a departmental proceeding and does not confer any right to claim benefits. The parameters to judge the....
Gratuity payment can be withheld during the pendency of departmental or judicial proceedings as per Rule 64(1)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
Departmental proceedings can continue post-retirement, and acquittal in a criminal case does not exonerate an employee from departmental charges based on the same facts.
Departmental proceedings and criminal cases are distinct; acquittal in a criminal case does not invalidate disciplinary action if misconduct is proven.
The acquittal in criminal proceedings does not preclude disciplinary action in departmental proceedings, as the standard of proof and burden of proof are different in the two proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.