Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hemant Kumar Jain vs Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank on 17 February, 2016
1
Writ Appeal No.246/2015
17.02.2016
Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri P.B.S. Nair, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard on the question of admission.
ORDER
Brief facts of the case are that when the appellant was posted as Branch Manager at Katkoot Branch of Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank, a charge sheet was issued on 07.02.2005 (Annexure P/1), levelling ten charges against him, which includes the charge of grave financial irregularities in sanctioning and granting crop loan to various agriculturists. The Enquiry Officer strictly in consonance with Bank's Officers & Employees Service Regulations, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) completed the enquiry and gave his findings against the appellant. First information report was also lodged against the appellant and he was in police custody from 29.07.1999 to 03.08.1999. Thereafter, after granting due opportunity, the Disciplinary Authority, in terms of the Regulations, passed an order of punishment of his dismissal from service on 03.03.2006 (Annexure P/7). The appeal against the aforesaid order of dismissal filed by the appellant was dismissed on 08.02.2007 (Annexure P/9).
2. The appellant challenged both the aforesaid orders by filing Writ Petition No.2654/2007.
3. Learned Writ Court by impugned order dated 25.04.2015 has held that the enquiry has been held strictly in accordance with the Regulations, and therefore, there is 2 no procedural irregularity committed by the respondents while conducting Departmental Enquiry; principles of natural justice and fair play have been followed by the respondents. It is also observed that there is a slight delay in concluding the Departmental Enquiry, however, merely because there is a delay in conducting the Departmental Enquiry, the same will not vitiate the enquiry proceedings, as held by the Apex Court in the case of P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 776.
4. After appellant's dismissal from service on 31.03.2006, criminal case was decided on 30.03.2007 (Annexure P/13) and in the aforesaid criminal case, the learned trial Court by giving benefit of doubt, acquitted him from the criminal charges.
5. A question was raised before the learned Writ Court by the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant, that the factum with regard to acquittal of employee being an important circumstance, the same has to be considered by the learned Writ Court, while affirming the order of his dismissal from service. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Writ Court in letter and spirit, while dismissing the writ petition. He has also drawn our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & others v. P.C. Kakkar reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 and a Division Bench decision of the Principal Seat of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Raghubir Singh v. Union of India & others reported in 2007 (2) MPLJ and prays that the writ appeal 3 be partly allowed and the matter be remanded to the learned Writ Court or the Disciplinary Authority for considering the factum of acquittal of the appellant / delinquent on the question of punishment.
6. It is a well settled proposition of law that even if a person stands acquitted by a criminal Court, the domestic enquiry can be held, since standards of proof required in a domestic enquiry and criminal case are different. Learned Writ Court also considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Diwan Singh v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others reported in (2015) 2 SCC 341 and Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal Rao reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442 and observed that as the appellant was involved in misappropriation of funds of which he was the custodian, no case for interference with the impugned order of punishment is made out. It is also observed that the appellant was dismissed from service on 31.03.2006, and therefore, as the criminal case has been decided subsequently, the question of granting any benefit to the appellant pursuant to his acquittal in the criminal case, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, does not arise. Learned Writ Court has reiterated that the respondents have not committed any procedural irregularity while conducting Departmental Enquiry and the respondents have followed the principles of natural justice and fair play and they have meticulously conducted the Departmental Enquiry, and therefore, question of judicial interference in Departmental Enquiry and re-
4appreciation of evidence does not arise. It has been further observed that the Departmental Enquiry proceedings had been held strictly in consonance with the Regulations.
7. In the case in hand, the appellant was a bank employee and once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence, we cannot direct for reinstatement of the employee. Hon'ble Apex Court time and again has held that in a case of misconduct of grave nature like corruption and/or theft, no punishment other than the dismissal would be appropriate. Apex Court in the case of Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & others v. P.C. Kakkar (supra) has held that when Court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such conclusion; merely stating that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate, would not meet the requirement of law. Acquittal in a criminal case is not determinative of the commission of misconduct or otherwise, and it is open to the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, notwithstanding acquittal in the criminal case. It per se would not entitle the employee to claim immunity from the proceedings. At the most, the factum of acquittal may be a circumstance to be considered while awarding punishment. It would depend upon the facts of each case and even that cannot 5 have universal application.
8. Learned Writ Court considered the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the issue so also the question of acquittal and upheld the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, it cannot be said that no reasons have been recorded for coming to such a conclusion. Learned Writ Court while considering the question of punishment of dismissal from service of the appellant also considered the factum of acquittal of the appellant by the Criminal Court.
9. For these reasons, we are of the view that the writ appeal filed by the appellant has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Pithawe RC