Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Sub Inspector Sanjay Sharma on 15 February, 2008 cites

Allahabad Bank And Anr vs Deepak Kumar Bhola on 13 March, 1997

13. As already noted above, the respondent was suspended on a serious charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In such cases even if the suspension is prolonged for some time because of the pendency of criminal cases, it would not be a fit case where suspension order should be set aside on this ground. While making these observations, we are supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank and Anr. v. Deepak Kumar Bhola . In the said case the respondent-employee was suspended pending criminal trial for offences involving moral turpitude. Allegations against him were that of committing forgery and wrongfully withdrawing of money from the bank which he was not entitled to do. The suspension was challenged by the employee which was upheld by the High Court concluding that the mere fact that a person had entered into criminal conspiracy, it could not be recorded that an "offence involving moral turpitude" had been committed and therefore bank had no jurisdiction to suspend the employee in terms of Clause 19.3(a) of the First Bipartite Settlement, 1966 as per which suspension could be resorted to only if the charge related to an offence involving moral turpitude. In appeal filed by the bank, Supreme Court reversed the judgment of High Court holding that the allegation against the employee amounted to moral turpitude. It would be apt to quote para 11 of the judgment which would show that the Supreme Court was not persuaded by the fact that criminal case was pending for ten years. Para 11 reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 190 - Full Document

R.K. Bhatia vs Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. on 22 February, 1999

23. What can be inferred from the approach of the Courts in such cases is that in those cases where Court found that the charges were very serious like committing forgery or defalcation of money, etc. and it was not in public interest to allow such an employee to join back the duties when he was facing such serious charges particularly keeping in view the nature of duties he was performing having direct bearing on the charges he was facing in criminal Court, even long delay did not convince the Court to quash the suspension and allow the delinquent officer to go back on duty unless he is exonerated of the charge. To put it differently, once the Court found that, keeping in view the nature of charges, it was not in public interest to revoke the suspension, prolongation of the criminal case did not become determinative/influencing factor to set aside the suspension order. Of- course, interference with such matters depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the division bench of this Court set aside the suspension in the case of K.K. Bhardwaj v. Delhi Vidyut Board (supra) even when the allegations of defalcation were leveled against the delinquent officers. However, as against these allegations, the Court was influenced by three factors namely (a) delinquent officials were under suspension for more than 15 years and 12 years respectively; (b) the attitude of CBI had been absolutely callous and it had not assisted the Court inasmuch as no witnesses in the criminal trial has been examined by that time; (c) the allegations were in respect of incident alleged to have taken place in the year 1982 for which charges were framed by the Special Court in one case in the year 1989 and in another case on 5th January, 1998. It was in these circumstances the Court observed that considering the fact that the appellants have been under suspension for so many years and no progress has been made in the criminal cases, the appellants' cannot be asked to await till the disposal of the criminal case.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - K Ramamoorthy - Full Document
1