Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 727
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Dev Kumar Jain - Petitioner
Versus
PNB and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. (S/S) 236 of 2008
Decided On : 25.7.2013
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate with Mrs. Mamta Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram, Advocate for the respondents.
Acquittal in a criminal trial does not preclude departmental proceedings based on the same charges.
Headnote:
Bank Fraud - Departmental Proceedings - IPC 120B, 420, 471, 477-A, 201 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - [IPC 120B, 420, 471, 477-A, 201 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bank officer, was accused of not crediting cheques amounting to Rs. 19,76,504.50 to the designated account and instead crediting them to fictitious accounts. He was acquitted in the criminal trial but faced departmental proceedings based on the same charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bank officer was responsible for not crediting the cheques to the designated account and instead crediting them to fictitious accounts, causing a loss to the bank. The court held that the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal trial did not preclude the departmental proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the departmental proceedings could proceed against the petitioner after his acquittal in the criminal trial based on the same charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquittal in the criminal trial did not bar the departmental proceedings as the standards of proof and appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings are different.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the departmental proceedings against the petitioner.
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
1. The petitioner was an Officer Incharge of Punjab National Bank’s Extension Counter i.e. Mussoorie Dehradun Electricity Supply Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as “MDESU”) under Branch Office Karanpur, Dehradun between the years 1994 to 1996. The said Extension Counter used to receive cheques in the account of MDESU. However, the cheques collectively amounting to Rs. 19,76,504.50/- which were liable to be credited to the account of Electricity Urban Distribution Division (South) [herein after referred to as ‘EUDD(S)’] were not credited in the said account. Thereafter the Bank did an in house inquiry and found that all these cheques were deposited in the Bank of which the petitioner was the Branch Manager but the same have not been credited to the account of EUDD(S) at MDESU during 1995-1996. Consequently, a complaint was filed before the CBI, Dehradun and a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner. CBI filed its chargesheet in the matter on 28.1.2002 under Sections 120B, 420, 471, 477-A and 201 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner. At the same time, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner in which he was given a chargesheet on 4.3.2003. However, in view of the FIR lodged against the petitioner under Sections 120B, 420, 471, 477-A and 201 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 petitioner was arrested by the CBI as far back in the year 2002 and the petitioner remained under judicial custody till 2005. Ultimately trial commenced against the petitioner in which he was acquitted of all the charges. Promptly thereafter the petitioner went to the Bank and sought joining which was given to him, but at the same time the departmental proceedings recommenced. Departmental proceedings were initially stalled, as the petitioner was under judicial custody.
2. Broadly the charge against the petitioner is that an amount of Rs. 19,76,504.50/- which was to be credited through various cheques in the account of EUDD(S) was not credited and in the inquiry it was found that they have been credited in fictitious accounts of Hari Ram, Vijay Pal, Uma Devi and Prem Singh. In the inquiry, it was found that such persons could not be traced on the address as mentioned in their accounts in the Bank and therefore they were found to be fictitious. The entire responsibility of all this was fixed on the petitioner as the extension counter was under his sole charge.
3. The Inquiry Officer gave a finding against the petitioner in most of the charges. Though it is true that some of the charges were only partially proved. On the basis of the inquiry report the petitioner was removed from the services of the Bank.
4. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved a statutory appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed by a speaking order on 30.8.2007. Thereafter his revision of appeal has also been dismissed on 31.12.2007. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
5. The main thrust of the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that both the criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedings were initiated against him on the same set of charges. Now since he has been acquitted by the criminal court in the criminal trial and the charges in the departmental proceeding were exactly the same, the departmental proceeding should not have been proceeded against him and in any case entire proceeding stand vitiated.
6. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court such as in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 and Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570. The main difference between the case of Captain M. Paul Anthony (Supra) and the present case is that in the said case before the Hon’ble Apex Court t
