Back
2024 Supreme(Jhk) 366
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Sushil Kumar Singh, son of Indra Deo Singh - Petitioner
Versus
UCO Bank, through its Chairman and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 3465 of 2023
Decided On : 18-06-2024
For the Petitioner: Mrs. M.M. Pal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Binod Kumar Jha.
For the Respondents: Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Mr. Shushavan Bhowmik, Mr. Krishna Prajapati.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically invalidate findings in disciplinary proceedings, especially when different standards of evidence and witnesses are involved.
Headnote:
[DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS] - [REINSTATEMENT OF SERVICE] - [ACT SECTION LIST: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, IPC Sections 408, 409, 420, 120-B] - [The court discussed the principles of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that the review is not an appeal but a check on the decision-making process. It highlighted that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and that the burden of proof in such proceedings is based on the preponderance of probabilities. The court also noted the significance of the acquittal in the criminal case but concluded that it did not affect the findings of the disciplinary proceedings due to the different evidentiary standards and witnesses involved. The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision to remove the petitioner from service, finding the punishment proportionate to the proven charges.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of UCO Bank, was removed from service following disciplinary proceedings related to allegations of fraudulent withdrawals from a customer's account. The petitioner was acquitted in a related criminal case, but the disciplinary proceedings were based on different evidence and witnesses. The petitioner sought reinstatement based on the acquittal and claimed procedural irregularities in the disciplinary process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly and that the charges against the petitioner were substantiated by banking documents. The court emphasized that the acquittal in the criminal case did not negate the findings of the disciplinary authority, as the standards of proof and the evidence considered were distinct.
Issues: Whether the acquittal in the criminal case impacts the findings of the disciplinary proceedings, and whether the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the charges proved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to examining the fairness of the process rather than the merits of the decision. It held that the disciplinary authority's findings were based on sufficient evidence and that the acquittal in the criminal case did not undermine the disciplinary proceedings due to differing evidentiary standards.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the disciplinary authority's decision to remove the petitioner from service.
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :
“For issuance of appropriate Writ or Writs, direction or directions, order or orders commanding the Concern Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits in view of Judgment of acquittal dated 18-01-2018 passed in G.R. Case No. 1433/2004 (Jharia P.S. Case No. 157/2004) in favour of petitioner by setting aside the Appellate Order dated 17-06-2023 (Annexure-8), passed by the General Manager (Personnel Services) i.e. Respondent No.2;
AND
Petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate Writ or Writs, direction or directions, order or orders to set aside the Final order dated 22-06-2005 (Annexure-2), passed by Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank i.e. Respondent NO.5 whereby and whereunder Respondent NO. 5 has imposed punishment of Removal from Service with Superannuation Benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing and without disqualification from future employment.”
Arguments of the Petitioner
3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that arising out of the same incident and the same set of charges both the proceedings i.e. departmental proceeding as well as criminal case, were instituted against the petitioner and the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case after full-fledged trial. The learned Senior counsel submits that in the departmental proceeding, altogether four witnesses were examined, two were from the side of the management and two from the side of the defence but in the criminal case altogether 7 witnesses were examined and 4 of them were bank officials. She has fairly submitted that none of the witnesses who were examined in the departmental proceeding were the witnesses in the criminal case.
4. She has also submitted that the informant/victim/complainant namely Meena Singh neither appeared as a witness in the disciplinary proceedings nor was examined as a witness in the criminal case and therefore, the petitioner was deprived of cross-examining Smt. Meena Singh which could have enabled the petitioner to bring the truth on board. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the cheques were not sent for examination by handwriting expert and since Smt. Meena Singh did not appear, therefore, her signature could not be compared with the signature on the cheques.
5. The learned Senior counsel has also submitted that the document was required to be proved and mere filing was not sufficient. She has relied upon paragraphs 14 and 23 the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others).
6. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the points raised in the memo of appeal (Annexure-3) have also not been considered by the appellate authority.
7. The learned Senior counsel has further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, it may also be considered that the punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 17.01.2024.
8. The learned Senior counsel has thereafter submitted that prior to acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner had accepted the terminal benefit but the same will not preclude the petitioner from challenging the orders passed in the departmental proceedings particularly in the light of acquittal in the criminal case.
9. The learned Senior counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175 (Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others).
Arguments of the Respondents
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that the
