The pendency of a criminal case does not automatically bar disciplinary proceedings if the charges are different. The court can interfere with the quantum of punishment if it shocks the conscience of the court.

1. The writ petition is directed against the order of the disciplinary authority viz., the first respondent dated 21.11.2000, as confirmed by the appellate authority, the second respondent dated 5.6.2002, by which punishment of dismissal was passed against the petitioner, treating the period of suspension as suspension for all purposes came to be confirmed.

2. The writ petitioner while he was working as a Cashier in the respondent Bank at Sivakasi branch, there was a complaint about shortage of Rs.31,689.30, in respect of which a criminal case was filed against him under section 409 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, which was subsequently transferred to the file of Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi and numbered as C.C.No.382 of 1989. It is, in respect of the same allegation, the first respondent issued a charge memo on 17.12.1988. Even though the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, in departmental proceedings, by order dated 21.11.2000 of the first respondent which is stated to have been served on the petitioner on 7.3.2002, he was dismissed from service as against which appeal was filed before the second respondent which came to be rejected on 5.7.2002.

3. The impugned orders are challenged on various grounds including that when the competent criminal Court on a same charge acquitted the petitioner on 11.7.1996, in the disciplinary proceedings the order of dismissal was passed after four years on 21.11.2000; that when the charge was about shortage, it was converted into misappropriation and therefore, there was no shortage; that the petitioner did not attend the Office after 15.10.1987, however, the suspension order was passed on 20.10.1987; that even though the petitioner was permitted to peruse the voluminous records, copies of the said documents were not furnished stating that the same would be supplied during the time of enquiry; that as per the Sastri award on the same set of facts, if criminal complaint and disciplinary proceedings are initiated, the disciplinary proceedings are to await till the criminal trial is completed, but contrary to this, enquiry commenced on 2.5.1988 and even after acquittal in the criminal case on 21.11.2000, the department proceedings ended in punishment; that the shortage does not amount to misappropriation and that the Enquiry Officer’s report is not based on any legal evidence and the disciplinary authority, without considering the materials placed, has passed the order of punishment and the appellate authority has also not considered the order of the original authority in its proper perspective.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent bank, it is stated that the petitioner was working as a Clerk in Sivakasi branch of the respondent bank and on 15.10.1987 when he was working as Cashier, he left the branch around 2.15 p.m. and he did not return and the petitioner’s drawer was opened with duplicate key and when inventory was taken, it was found that there was a shortage of Rs.31,689.30. It is stated that since the petitioner did not report for duty, a complaint was lodged with the police and he was prosecuted for the offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

a) It is stated that a charge memo was issued on 17.2.1988 for the misconduct amounting to breach of trust and fraudulent misappropriation and the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation and to appear for enquiry on 5.12.1988 and when the petitioner requested for adjournment, it was posted on 21.12.1998. It is stated that in the meantime, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.616 of 1988 before the District Munsif’s Court, Sattur for an injunction restraining the Enquiry Officer from proceeding with the domestic enquiry till the completion of criminal case and he also got an interim injunction and ultimately, the said suit came to be dismissed as not maintainable on 23.12.1989 and the order of interim injunction was vacated and the appeal filed by the petitioner against th