Disciplinary proceedings against an employee for an act committed many years ago, after the employee has been acquitted in a criminal case and reinstated in service, are unfair and violative of principles of natural justice.

1. By the Court.- The writ petition is directed against show cause notice dated 22-2-86 and charge sheet dated 21-10-86 issued to the petitioner in respect of certain acts and omission said to have been committed by him years ago. The petitioner has also prayed that prohibition may be issued against the opposite parties from proceeding against him.

2. The petitioner who was an employee of the Central Bank of India joined its services as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 16-11-1970. In the year 1974 the petitioner was working as Clerk in Jalalpur branch, a FIR was lodged against the petitioner u/Sec. 417/468/409/420/201 IPC along with four others. The investigation was made by the police and a final report was submitted on 21-12-76 and was accepted by the Court. During the pendency of criminal proceedings referred to above, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 27-4-74. He continued to remain under suspension for six years and thereafter the petitioner moved an application for reinstatement and on 8-2-80 the Deputy General Manager, Central Bank of India issued an order of reinstatement finally in favour of the petitioner. It was mentioned in the reinstatement order that it will not affect civil suit against him and others. Thereafter the petitioner joined the services on Febuary 1980. He was transferred to Lucknow in the year 1984. An Application was moved by the A. P. O. before the Court at Faizabad and some criminal case was reopened in which a final report had been submitted. The petitioner preferred an application before this court u/Sec. 482 CrPC and this court vide order dated 18-9-75 quashed the proceedings holding that prima facie no case against the petitioner was made out. Thereafter on 22-2-86 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, who according to the petitioner is not competent in the matter. This time charge against the petitioner was that he had stolen a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the cash counter on 4-6-1971. It appears that no FIR was lodged in this regard and no departmental action was taken. It is also not disputed that said sum of Rs. 10,000/-, had already been recovered from the employee concerned. The notice which was followed by a charge sheet has been challenged by the petitioner.

On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that entire proceedings are without jurisdiction and have been initiated by an authority who has got no jurisdiction in the matter.

3. On behalf of the opposite party it has been contended that disciplinary action can be taken against the petitioner at any stage. Petitioner has placed reliance on paragraph 505 and 521-D (3) of Shastri Award which admittedly applies to the bank employees. ON its basis the petitioner has contended that after lapse of such a long period, criminal proceedings have come to an end and the petitioner cannot be charged in this manner and no proceedings can take place. The petitioner has placed reliance on the division bench decision in the case of S. Rama Rao v. F. C. I. New Delhi 1990 (1) Ail India Services Law Journal 33. In the said case petitioner was acquitted and after acquittal his petition was accepted and he was reinstated. Disciplinary proceedings started on same charge and no satisfactory explanation having been given, the proceedings were quashed. This case has got no applicability to this case as the proceedings were not started on same charge. Reliance was further placed on J. P. Pandey v. State Bank of India, 1985 (2) LLJ 1458. This case also has got no applicability to the instant case. Reference was then made to the case of A. P. Augustine v. Superintendent, Post Office, 1984 (2) SLR 163. In this case it was held that no fair and effective enquiry can be conducted unless it commences within a reasonable time after the incident and belated enquiry is unlikely to be fair. Calling upon an employee to defend himself at this distance of time is probaly to put him at consider