Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Chief Regional Manager State Bank Of ... vs S. Eswara Rao on 25 June, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994(3)ALT230, (1995)IILLJ874AP
JUDGMENT Lingaraja Rath, J.
1. The question that falls for decision in this appeal is whether an employee after his acquittal by a Court of law from a charge under Section 409 IPC can be made to face a departmental proceeding on the same charge and be inflicted with penalty of removal from service. Respondent was holding the post of Officer-in-charge in the office of the appellant and was put on trial on charge of misappropriation of Rs. 17,185-07 said to have been committed during the period from 16-8-1969 to 21-7-1973. The case ended in conviction, but in appeal to this Court, he was acquitted holding the charges as having not been proved. Thereafter, departmental proceedings were started on two heads of charges the first being that the respondent had misappropriate Rs. 17,185-07 during the period 16-8-1969 to 21-7-1973, and the other being that he had received different amounts for credit to the Savings Bank Accounts at the Sub-Office but did not account for the amounts in those offices. Respondent denied the charges but the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of both the charges and thereafter on the second notice being issued, and the respondent had submitted his reply, the punishment was imposed.
2. In the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge examined the question in detail and held, relying upon Corporation of Nagpur v. Ramachandra G. Modak and R. P. Kapur v. Union of India that when the charges are identical and the evidence is common and the grounds taken in the departmental proceedings are identical with those in the criminal case, the exercise again gone through by departmental proceedings would be really unnecessary as the public servant already been acquitted of the same on consideration of the evidence and materials on record by the Criminal Court. The view was taken by the learned single Judge, explaining the observations in Corporation of Nagpur (supra) holding that normally where a person is acquitted honourably, it would not be expedient to continue the departmental enquiry on the very same charges, the proposition being based on the sound principle that when a public servant has been acquitted honourably in a criminal case, it does not serve any purpose to subject him to a departmental enquiry on the very same charges again. He also held that it would be a different matter if the charges levelled against the public servant are of different nature and covered a different are altogether, which had not been the subject matter of the criminal charges.
3. The question as to the competence and propriety of initiation of departmental proceedings on the self-same charges of which the delinquent has been acquitted has been examined successively by different Courts and considerable case law has developed on the subject. Almost all such decisions appear to have been taken into account by a Division Bench of this Court in general Manager, APSRTC v. K. Seshagiri Rao 1991 (2) An. W. R. 49 where in it was observed as follows :
"The conclusion deducible from the precedents is that even if the charges were the same in a criminal proceeding and in a disciplinary proceedings and the former ends in acquittal by the Criminal Courts it is open to the disciplinary authority to continue departmental proceedings if the authority is satisfied that there are 'sufficient evidence and good grounds' to proceed with the inquiry. The authorities, are however, to be governed by the Rule of caution that they shall advert to and take into account the fact of acquittal; but they are not precluded from initiating or continuing the disciplinary proceedings, if that course is warranted by the circumstances of the case."
Corporation of Nagpur (supra) was also considered in that case. Hence the view unequivocally taken was that merely because the charges in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are identical and the employee has been acquitted of the charges by the Criminal Court, the authority and jurisdiction of the employer is not lost to conduct a departmental proceeding on the same allegations. This question was considered by a Full Bench of the Orissa High Court referred to by the Division Bench, Jayaram Panda v. D. V. Raiyani & Ors. in which the observations were :-
"an order of acquittal passed in a criminal case does not debar a departmental enquiry of self-same charges. Even if the delinquent is honourably acquitted the discretion is left with the authority himself, and if he, on the facts and circumstances of the case, feels that notwithstanding the acquittal of the delinquent of a departmental enquiry is expedient, ordinarily that should not be open to scrutiny by a Court. Thus the only guiding factor for a departmental authority would be to find out whether it would be expedient to continue a departmental inquiry in the facts and circumstances of a particular case where the accused stood his trial on the very same charges and the charges were completely exonerated and he was acquitted honourably. This could be a germane consideration for the departmental authority to take into account and decide whether the departmental inquiry would be continued or not, but the power of the authority to continue the same is not taken away nor the discretion has been fettered in any manner."
It was further observed by Agarwal, C.J.
"the decision to hold a departmental enquiry against a delinquent Government servant which is required "in the interest of public administration" in entirely a different proceeding. The object of holding a departmental enquiry is entirely different i.e., whether the delinquent is guilty of any misconduct or delinquency and the mere fact that the enquiring officer may reach a conclusion different from that recorded by the criminal Court does not abridge his right. There is no constitutional, statutory or legal bar on the basis of which it can be held that a departmental enquiry is bad in view of the order of acquittal recorded by a criminal Court."
That being the position, we do not see any reason to take a different view.
4. The next question is as to whether on germane considerations the appellant decided to conduct departmental proceeding? Though such a question was possible to have been raised, we find that no such question was urged either in the reply to the show cause notice or even in the Writ Petition accompanying the affidavit. The question cannot be raised at this stage.
5. From the judgment it appears that two contentions have been advanced before the learned single Judge - the first being the question under consideration and the second being that the authorities had acted in gross violation of natural justice by not examining one crucial witness but holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. It is conceded by Counsel on both sides that the second question though raised was not decided and the learned Judge has not addressed himself to the question. That being so, we remand the case, while allowing the appeal, to the learned single Judge to dispose it of on the questioner raised by the respondent. No costs.