Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
Ashu Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of India - Respondent
CWP No. 28296 of 2018 and CWP No. 6408 of 2023
Decided On : 18-01-2024
Acquittal - Departmental Proceedings - Indian Penal Code, Cr.P.C. - [Section 454, Section 380, Section 409, Section 120-B, Section 173] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the standard of evidence and yardstick adopted in departmental and criminal proceedings, the impact of acquittal in criminal trial on departmental proceedings, and the duty of the court to examine findings of the criminal court. The court emphasized that if the foundation of departmental proceedings and criminal trial is the same, the court must look into the judgment of acquittal and examine reinstatement if the acquittal is not based on technical grounds or turning of witnesses hostile.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Customer Assistant at State Bank of India, was charged with theft based on recovery of money by the police. The petitioner was acquitted by the Trial Court after a full-fledged trial, with findings that he was not involved in the theft.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's acquittal was not based on technical grounds or witness hostility, and the departmental action needed to be re-examined in light of the judgment of acquittal and the findings recorded by the court.
Issues: The issues involved the impact of acquittal in criminal trial on departmental proceedings, the standard of evidence in departmental and criminal proceedings, and the duty of the court to examine findings of the criminal court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the foundation of departmental proceedings and criminal trial is the same, the court must look into the judgment of acquittal and examine reinstatement if the acquittal is not based on technical grounds or turning of witnesses hostile.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the Disciplinary Authority to re-examine the matter in the light of the judgment of acquittal and the court's findings. The Disciplinary Authority was also directed to consider the question of back-wages.
JUDGMENT :
Jagmohan Bansal, J.
Written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 through Sh. Ran Singh, Regional Manager, State Bank of India and Regional Business Officer, Ambala (Haryana) is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.
2. By this common order CWP-28296-2018 & CWP-6408-2023 are hereby disposed of since issue involved in both the petitions and prayer sought are common. With the consent of parties and for the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from CWP-28296-2018.
3. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of charge sheet dated 05.02.2016 (Annexure P-2); order dated 10.03.2017 (Annexure P-3) whereby Enquiry Officer was appointed; order dated 26.10.2017 (Annexure P-5) whereby Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of removal from service and order dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure P-8) whereby Deputy General Manager has dismissed appeal of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner was appointed as Customer Assistant, State Bank of India, SME Branch, Yamuna Nagar on 11.02.2015. An FIR No.119 dated 30.08.2015 under Sections 454, 380, 409 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code came to be registered alleging theft of Rs. 12,91,800/-from the ATM of respondent-Bank. The petitioner was not named in the FIR, however, he came to be arrested and recovery of Rs. 1 Lakh was effected from him. On the basis of alleged recovery, the respondent-Bank issued charge sheet dated 26.10.2017 alleging that police has recovered a sum of Rs. 1 lakh out of stolen money. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and found petitioner guilty of commission of offence of theft. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. Assistant General Manager vide order dated 26.10.2017 ordered to remove the petitioner from service. It was further ordered that removal would be with superannuation benefits i.e. pension, provident fund and gratuity. The petitioner had joined just 6 months prior to alleged incident, thus, petitioner, practically, was not entitled to any superannuation benefit. The Disciplinary Authority in its order dated 26.10.2017 with respect to all the charges concluded that police has recovered a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from the petitioner and challan has been filed against him, thus, he is liable to be punished. In other words, the foundation of the impugned order was involvement of the petitioner in aforesaid FIR. The relevant extracts of order dated 26.10.2017 passed by Disciplinary Authority read as :
You divulged stolen secret information regarding Sadhaura branch ATM password and system of handling of ATM machine to an outsider Sh. Chander Mohan, with an ulterior motive of stealing ATM Cash. Thus, you connived with Sh. Chander Mohan an outsider and also Sh. Ajay Raj, Customer Assistant, Sadhaura Branch to commit fraud in Bank by way of embezzlement of ATM Cash of Sadhaura Branch.
My findings:
To prove the charge No 1, the PO has produced CCTV footage, copy of FIR, final report of FIR, apart from deposition of Sh Balinder Kumar and Sh Sulekh Chand. It has come on record that Sh Ajay Raj shared the password with you. You further shared it with Chander Mohan apart from system of handling of ATM. It is also matter of record that out of total amount recovered, Rs. One lac has also been recovered from you by the Police. All these incidents are sufficient to prove the charge as all such evidences in all probabilities lead to your involvement and therefore I agree with the findings of the EO and hold the charge as proved.
Charge No.2
On account of your involvement in the fraud, FIR was lodged with local Police and you were arrested by Police on 02.09.2015. You remained under judicial / police custody till 05.04.2016, which adversely affected the reputation of the Branch and image of the Bank.
My findings:
To prove the charge No.2, the PO has produced the copy of FIR, Final report of FIR, cuttings of Various News Papers regarding your involvement in this ATM ca
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the foundation of departmental proceedings and criminal trial is the same, the court must examine the judgment of acquittal and consider re....
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.
The dismissal of a police officer based on departmental proceedings was unjustified as the charges were not proven, and acquittal in criminal proceedings must be considered.
The court held that a disciplinary dismissal based on unproven charges is unjustified, especially when the employee is acquitted in related criminal proceedings.
Acquittal in criminal case on identical facts as departmental proceedings, after full trial disproving charges on merits, requires setting aside disciplinary punishment despite differing proof standa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
