THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. STUMPP, SCHUELE & SOMAPPA SPRINGS PRIVATE LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER AND SRI NANDAKUMAR Vs. KIRAN GANTIMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendants challenging the order passed by the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 8921/2012, dated 11.01.2013, whereunder I.A. No. 1 filed by the plaintiff praying for grant of order of temporary injunction restraining defendant No. 2 not to proceed with the domestic enquiry during the pendency of the suit has been allowed. I have heard the arguments of Sri. C.K. Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants i.e., defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri. T. Narayanaswamy, learned counsel appearing for respondent -plaintiff.

(2.) CONTENTION of Sri. C.K. Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants i.e., defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is that trial Court committed a serious error in restraining the Management from proceeding with the domestic enquiry which was based on a charge -sheet issued to the delinquent employee for misappropriation of funds, falsification and fabrication of records by diverting consignment meant for the Company use and disposing of the said consignment and misappropriating the amounts realized therefrom has no connection whatsoever to the criminal prosecution launched by the jurisdictional police and as such, it cannot be construed that criminal prosecution as well as domestic enquiry proceedings are on the same set of facts. He would submit that proceedings with domestic enquiry would in no way prejudice the delinquent employee on account of the pendency of the criminal proceedings as they are entirely on different set of facts. He would also further draw the attention of the Court to the communication dated 30.07.2012 submitted by the delinquent employee to the Management whereunder he has agreed to the guilt and as such he prays for setting aside the order passed by the trial Court and allow the appeal. He would further submits that in a domestic enquiry the degree of proof which is required to be tendered stands on different footing than in a criminal case which requires the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and as such he submits that trial Court could not have granted an order of injunction.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned advocates and on perusal of the order passed by trial Court and on bestowing my careful attention to the case -laws cited, I am of the considered view that following point would arise for my consideration.