AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner is an employee of the second respondent bank. She has come forward with the present Writ Petition seeking to restrain the first respondent bank from proceeding with the departmental enquiry pending criminal case.
In the Writ Petition, notice of motion was ordered on 28.07.2009. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted an order of interim stay of the disciplinary proceedings for a period of four weeks. On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed a counter-affidavit dated 29.10.2009. In paragraph No. 7 of the counter-affidavit, it was averred as follows:
This respondent submits that the trial has started in 2008 not completed. It is not completed by May 2009, the enquiry proceedings should be re-started in May 2009. It is submitted that no uniform view can be taken in such type of cases. The view will be different from case to case depending on the circumstances of each case. In so far the present Writ Petition is concerned, the CCTV clearly shows the activity of the petitioner and the reported act involving alleged misappropriation of Rs. 10,000/- belonging to the bank is transparent and clear. In such type of cases, it will be unnecessary to wait for any criminal trial and the out come of the trial will have no reference in respect of act done by the petitioner.
It was also pointed out that pending criminal trial is not a bar for conducting departmental enquiry and bipartite settlement provides for such a procedure to be followed.
The petitioner, in her affidavit, placed heavy reliance upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Indian Overseas Bank and S. Venkatraman, Enquiry Officer, Indian Overseas Bank Inquiry Cell, Industrial Relations Department Vs. P. Ganesan and Others, . But the said judgment was subsequently taken to Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai and Another Vs. P. Ganesan and Others, . In paragraph Nos. 20 and 21 of the judgment, it was averred as follows:
...What was necessary to be noticed by the High Court was not only existence of identical facts and the evidence in the matter, it was also required to take into consideration the question as to whether the charges levelled against the delinquent officers, both in the criminal case as also the disciplinary proceedings, were same. Further more, it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to arrive at a finding that the non-stay of the disciplinary proceedings shall not only prejudice the delinquent officers but the matter also involves a complicated question of law.
The standard of proof in a disciplinary proceedings and that in a criminal trial is different. If there are additional charges against the delinquent officers including the charges of damaging the property belonging to the Bank which was not the subject-matter of allegations in a criminal case, the departmental proceedings should not have been stayed.
In the light of the same, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court and hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.