IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
Basistha Muni Mishra - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Others - Respondents
Writ C. No. 57858 of 2016
Decided On : 15-05-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 419, 420 – Pendency of disciplinary proceedings – Criminal jurisdiction acquitted – Challenging award – Held, Court find that departmental authorities should not have commenced departmental proceedings against petitioner as charge sheet in criminal case had been submitted within a period of one year and even if, by any stretch of imagination, it is held that departmental proceedings could commence, they were bound to be stayed awaiting decision of criminal trial – Same having not been done and effect of judgment of acquittal as well as clause 19.3 and 19.4 of Settlement of 1966 and identical clauses of settlement having not been given any consideration, order impugned does not sustain and is liable to be quashed – Writ petition partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Kshitij Shailendra, J.)
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 19.07.2016 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute No.49 of 2006, between Bashishtha Muni Mishra and the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India. Further orders under challenge are dated 26.10.2004 and 19.01.2005 respectively passed by the Assistant General Manager and Deputy General Manager. By the said orders, the petitioner was respectively dismissed from service and his departmental appeal was dismissed. Further prayer has been made to issue a direction for reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary from the date of order of suspension.
2. The facts as culled out from the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Messenger-cum-Water Boy in the respondent bank on 17.02.1979 and was later on promoted as Daftary. Lastly, he was posted at Johnstonganj Branch, Allahabad. It is pleaded that services of the petitioner were governed by Memorandum of Settlement dated 19.10.1966 containing the provisions of disciplinary action and procedure therefor. On 12.03.1999, a new Saving Bank Account No.01190022061 was allowed to be opened in the branch concerned in the name of one Smt. Prema Devi by accepting the reference of one Smt. Maina Devi, the depositor of Saving Bank Account No.58901. The account was opened after completion of necessary formalities and due verification by the bank authorities. On 13.03.1999, Smt. Prema Devi, the depositor of newly opened Account No.01190022061, deposited a cheque dated 16.07.1999 of Rs.67,050/-issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India in her favour which was collected by the bank through legal officer clearing and crediting the same in the account against which a withdrawal of Rs.65,000/-was done by Smt. Prema Devi on 18.08.1999 which was allowed by the concerned official of the bank. Later on, it stood revealed that cheque in question belonged to some other Prema Devi and Smt. Prema Devi whose Saving Account No. 01190022061 was allowed to be opened was not a genuine lady and her incorrect particulars were given. Concerning the said issue, the Branch Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India, City Branch, Allahabad informed the Police Station, Kotwali, Allahabad and pursuant thereto, a first information report was registered as Case Crime No.394 of 1999, under Section 419/420 IPC. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted by the investigating agency before the court on the basis whereof, Criminal Case No.1744 of 2000 was registered against the petitioner and one Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, within a period of less than six months from the date of registration of first information report. It is further pleaded that the petitioner was arrested by the police on 15.02.2000 but was subsequently bailed out. He was suspended by the bank and, ultimately, acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad under the judgment and order dated 15.10.2009 which has attained finality.
3. In so far as the departmental proceedings are concerned, it is pleaded that the departmental charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 18.02.2002, the inquiry was cursorily concluded in terms of an inquiry report dated 26.09.2002 in which charges no. 1 and 3 were found to be proved and charge no.2 as partly proved. It is further pleaded that based upon the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority took a provisional decision of dismissal of the petitioner on 22.09.2004 under paragraph 6(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 and called upon the petitioner to show cause against the said penalty. Further pleading is to the effect that prior to issuance of provisional order dated 22.09.2004, no copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner nor was he provided any opportunity to object the same.
4. It is further pleaded that the petitioner was dismissed from serv
G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujrat and others
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Mahesh Dahiya
Union of India and others Vs. Dalbir Singh: (2021) 11 SCC 321
State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh: (2022) 6 SCC 563
State Bank of India and others Vs. R.B. Sharma: (2004) 7 SCC 27
Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. M. Mani: (2018) 1 SCC 285
West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO Ltd.) Vs. Ram Pravesh Singh: (2008) 3 SCC 729
Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava: (2021) 2 SCC 612
Priti Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2008 (9) ADJ 388
Mayank Agarwal Vs. Bareilly Kshestriya Gramin Bank and others: 2013 (3) ADJ 143 (DB)
Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited: AIR 1999 SC 1416
R.P. Kapur v. Union of India and another: AIR 1964 SC 787
Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not bar disciplinary action; reopening of inquiry is valid if based on new findings.
(1) Departmental Proceeding – Nature of proceedings being wholly separate and distinct, acquittal in criminal proceedings does not entitle delinquent employee for any benefit in latter or automatic d....
The acquittal in a criminal trial does not prevent the initiation of departmental proceedings if the charges differ; delay must demonstrate prejudice to be considered fatal.
Disciplinary proceedings can continue despite acquittal in a criminal case, focusing on preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.
Acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle automatic reinstatement in employment; employers have discretionary power in disciplinary proceedings based on misconduct.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.