Acquittal in a criminal case does not bar disciplinary proceedings; these operate under distinct standards of proof and purposes.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the charge-sheet dated 27.12.2016 (Annexure P-2), the inquiry report dated 13.02.2019 (Annexure P-11), the punishment order dated 14.05.2019 and the order in appeal dated 15.10.2019 (Annexure P-15) ordering the petitioner’s removal from the service and further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and pay arrears of salary with interest @ 12% per annum from the date the same became due till the date of actual payment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been dismissed from service without being provided the CCTV footage, and that the petitioner has since been acquitted in the criminal case. It is argued that once the petitioner has been acquitted, the impugned order of dismissal is liable to be set aside. The Inquiry Officer based the findings solely on the bank account entries retrieved from the computer. The entire fraud was allegedly committed by one Satpal, who transferred the amount into the accounts of himself and his family members i.e. his wife, mother, and sister-in-law by using the ID and password of the petitioner as well as the IDs of other employees. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR; only Satpal was arrayed as an accused. Neither the Inquiry Officer nor the punishing authority considered the petitioner’s defence regarding the production of CCTV footage. The petitioner relies on Annexure P-12 to submit that, had the CCTV footage been produced before the Inquiry Officer, the true facts would have come to light. The petitioner was not even present in the Bank on 11.01.2016, as he was on election duty on that day; however, the Inquiry Officer failed to consider this material fact. It is further submitted that while some employees were spared, only few including the petitioner, was subjected to departmental action. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in haste and without supplying the petitioner with the necessary and relevant documents required for an effective defence.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that all documents demanded by the petitioner from time to time were duly supplied. The charge-sheet was issued on 27.12.2016, but the petitioner repeatedly delayed the proceedings on one pretext or another by seeking irrelevant documents that had no nexus with the disciplinary inquiry. The petitioner was afforded sufficient time and adequate opportunities to defend himself in accordance with the applicable regulations, and there is no violation of any statutory rule. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case, by itself, is not a ground to set aside the disciplinary action.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. A bare perusal of the paper book reveals that the department followed the procedure established under law to conduct the proceedings and come to the conclusion. Further it transpires that the petitioner’s premise is that he has been given clean chit in the criminal manner and as such he should get exonerated from the disciplinary proceedings as well.

6. A Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. G.M. (P.J.) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd 2005 (7) SCC 764 while speaking through Justice C.K. Thakker made the following ob