2006 Supreme(All) 1029
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Shishir Kumar, J.
Mahesh Rai Yadav Tribhuwan Rai
Versus
Board of Directors, Fatehpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank
Civil Misc.Writ Petition 40289 of 2002
Decided On : 06 April 2006
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 40289 Of 2002
Amrish Sahai, D.S.Singh, R.B.Sahai, Suresh Chandra Tiwari, V.C.MISHRA,
Involvement in a criminal case, even if acquitted, does not preclude an employer from taking disciplinary action.
Headnote:
disciplinary proceeding - termination of services - criminal case - suspension allowance - involvement in criminal case - disciplinary inquiry - misconduct - power of judicial review - involvement in criminal case not precluding disciplinary action
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of a bank, was involved in a disciplinary proceeding for misconduct and criminal case. The petitioner's services were terminated, and an appeal was dismissed. The petitioner approached the court for relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority had followed proper procedure, the charges against the petitioner were proved, and the appellate authority had considered the appeal. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's involvement in a criminal case, termination of services, and the legality of the disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that involvement in a criminal case, even if acquitted, does not preclude disciplinary action by the employer. The court also emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 12. 12. 2001, annexure-13 to the writ petition and the order dated 9. 5. 2002, Annexxure-15 to the writ petition.
( 2 ) THE facts arising out of the writ petition are that the petitioner was working as an employee of the bank. A disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him for the conduct of the petitioner as well as involvement in a criminal case. A show cause notice was given and a charge sheet was also given to the petitioner and an Inquiry Officer was appointed and the petitioner was given full opportunity during the pendency of the inquiry and by order dated 12 12. 2001, the petitioners services have been terminated and an amount to the time of Rs. 3,84,086. 00 was directed to be recovered from the petitioner The petitioner submits that he had filed an appeal and the appeal too has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has approached this Court.
( 3 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that during the inquiry proceeding the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity and even the petitioner has not been permitted to make the statement before the Inquiry Officer Further submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that as the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and subsequently the petitioner was acquitted, but the suspension allowance for which the petitioner was entitled was not being paid, as such the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court and by order in the writ petition, this Court was pleased to direct the respondents to make the payment of suspension allowance and to reinstate the petitioner. In spite of the directions issued by this Court, the order passed in the writ petition was not complied with. When the petitioner filed a contempt application and the respondents were directed to appear in person, then the petitioner was reinstated and the payment has been made. The petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid fact and circumstances, the respondent-disciplinary authority became annoyed and a punishment of dismissal has been awarded.
( 4 ) ONE of the charges against the petitioner that during the earlier suspension period the petitioner was running a canteen on the railway station is not supported by any evidence. One smt. Razia Begum in whose name the license was granted has not been produced before the inquiry Officer for the purpose of making the statement
( 5 ) FURTHER submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that involvement in a criminal case and as the petitioner has not yet been convicted, cannot be a basis for terminating the services of the petitioner. The other charges which have been leveled against the petitioner cannot lead to major punishment. Further submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the appellate authority has also not considered the grounds raised in the appeal and no personal hearing was given to the petitioner, therefore, total punishment awarded against the petitioner is vitiated. As such the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
( 6 ) NOTICES were issued and a counter affidavit has been filed. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur in Case no. 239 of 1993 under Sections 419, 420, 468, 408, 471 and 477-A IPC and the petitioner was acquitted on 25 6. 1993 mainly due to non-appearance of hand writing expert as a witness from the prosecution side. Subsequent to the acquittal, the petitioner submitted an application before the Chairman on 26. 6. 1993 for reinstatement. On the application filed by the petitioner it was informed to the petitioner that the bank is proposing to file an appeal/revision against the order passed in favour of the petitioner and till the matter is finalized, the petitioner cannot be reinstated and the payment cannot be made. But in the mean time the petitioner filed a writ petition before thi