Back
2008(3) Supreme 297
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S.B. Sinha & D.K. Jain, JJ.
The Managing Director State Bank of Hyderabad and Anr. — Petitioners
versus
P. Kata Rao — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 2961-2962 of 2008
Decided on : 24-04-2008
(b) Service Law – Departmental proceeding – Well settled that on the same set of facts the delinquent shall not be proceeded against in a departmental proceedings and in a criminal case simultaneously – However applicability of this principle depends on the fact situation of the case. (Para 20)
(1999) 3 SCC 679 – Relied upon.
(c) Service Law – Departmental proceeding – Respondent was proceeded with both on the charges of criminal misconduct as also civil misconduct on the same set of facts with the exception that charges Nos. 11 and 15 stricto sensu were not the subject matter of criminal proceedings, as integrity and diligence, however, were not in question – He had also not made any personal gain – No interference required with the High Court judgment. (Paras 21 and 25)
(d) Service Law – Punishment – In view of the respondent being guilty of mere procedural irregularity and now reaching superannuation, the appropriate authority of the appellant would be entitled to impose any suitable penalty upon him – No interference required. (Para 29)
(2006) 4 SCC 265: 2006(3) Supreme 405; (2006) 5 SCC 446: 2006(4) Supreme 740; (1999) 4 SCC 759: 1999(5) Supreme 1 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case:
1. Respondent at all material times was an employee in the appellant Bank. He was placed under suspension on or about 13.8.1998. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him.
2. He was also proceeded against in a criminal case. He was acquitted of the criminal charges.
3. However, the departmental proceedings continued during pendency of the criminal proceedings as prayer for stay thereof was not acceded to. The Enquiry Officer found that all the charges apart from charge Nos. 1(a), 2(b), 3 were proved.
4. The Appointing Authority passed an order of dismissal. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent was dismissed.
5. By an order dated 29.12.1995, the appellant was acquitted of the charges framed against him in the criminal proceeding under Sections 120B, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also acquitted of the charges for alleged commission of offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
6. Respondent, however, was convicted under Section 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court which set aside the order of conviction.
7. A Writ Petition was also filed questioning the said order of dismissal.
8. By an order dated 12.3.1999, a learned Single Judge of the High Court quashed the order of punishment and directed the disciplinary authority to issue a show cause notice indicating the modified punishment and pass an appropriate order.
9. Again an order of dismissal was passed on 2.7.1999. An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed. Another writ petition was filed by the respondent aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith.
10. The Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant was allowed.
11. The appeal in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant against the order of dismissal was disposed of by remitting the matter to the appointing authority.
Findings of the Court :
No interference is required with the High Court judgment.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 4.6.2007 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 627/628 of 2005 whereby and whereunder it refused to interfere with the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court in WP No. 476 of 2001.
3. Respondent at all material times was an employee in the appellant Bank. He was placed under suspension on or about 13.8.1998. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him.
12 items of charges were drawn up; charge Nos. 11 and 15 whereof read as under:
“Charge No. 11: He authorized cash and transfer credits to the demand loan accounts against pledge of gold ornaments of Smt. P. Lakshmi, his wife, from out of proceeds of loan amounts released to two DIR and one cash credit borrowers. Thus he facilitated his wife to get undue pecuniary benefit by permitting unauthorized adjustments which were done with his prior knowledge.
Charge No. 15: He sanctioned and released loans to his close relatives in contravention of H.O. Cir. No. ADV/98 of 1976 dated the 2nd December, 1976.”
4. He was also proceeded against in a criminal case. He was acquitted of the criminal charges.
5. However, the departmental proceedings continued during pendency of the criminal proceedings as prayer for stay thereof was not acceded to. The Enquiry Officer found that all the charges apart from charge Nos. 1(a), 2(b), 3 were proved.
6. The Appointing Authority passed an order of dismissal. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent was dismissed.
7. By an order dated 29.12.1995, the appellant was acquitted of the charges framed against him in the criminal proceeding under Sections 120B, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also acquitted of the charges for alleged commission of offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
8. Respondent, however, was convicted under Section 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court.
A Writ Petition was also filed questioning the said order of dismissal.
9. By an order dated 12.3.1999, a learned Single Judge of the High Court quashed the order of punishment and directed the disciplinary authority to issue a show cause notice indicating the modified punishment and pass an appropriate order.
10. A show cause notice was issued, pursuant to the said direction.
11. Again an order of dismissal was passed on 2.7.1999. An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed. Another writ petition was filed by the respondent aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith.
12. The Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of the High Court and by a judgment and order dated 3.10.2001, it was held:
“... In such a case, it is difficult to believe that the appellant had any intention to benefit himself or other persons. It has to be noted that the above reasoning of the trial court is most perverse and without any material. In my considered view the trial court had jumped to the conclusion without any basis.”
13. As regards, alleged commission of offence under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code, it was stated :
“From the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant could not have made the alleged entries willfully and with dishonest intention to defraud. It is certainly not the case of the prosecution that the appellant had independently committed the offence under Section 477-A I.P.C. and on the contrary the specific allegation of the prosecution was that there was conspiracy initially and as such a conspiracy has culminated into various offences attributable to all the accused and in particular of the offence under Section 477-A against the appellant.
Therefore, in view of the above observation made by the Apex Cou
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
