SYNDICATE BANK MANIPAL Vs. M C BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in the writ petition is the writ appellant. The a writ petitioner was an employee of the appellant-bank. In 1976, he was working at Shimoga. Certain allegations were made that the respondent-employee while functioning as a Branch manager of Kadugondanahalli Branch, entered into a criminal conspiracy with one M. V. Vasudevan, proprietor of Fixwell industries, Bangalore, for the purpose of cheating the bank. In pursuance of the conspiracy, the respondent-employee secured certain loan facilities, like, overdraft and DBC facility and permitted one M. V. Vasudevan to present bogus bills for discounting and in collusion with and with full knowledge of the bogus nature of bills, discounted the said bills and transferred the amount to the account of the said Vasudevan to enable him to withdraw the same. These allegations came to limelight to the appellant-bank when a criminal case in C. C. No. 7 of 1976, on the file of the Court of Special Judge at Bangalore came to be filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against both the employee and the aforesaid Vasudevan. On the basis of such allegations, the appellant-bank suspended the respondent-employee on 3-12-1976. It was mentioned in the order of suspension stating "in view of certain allegations appearing against you, while you were working as Manager at Kadugondanahalli branch, pending enquiry into the matter, you are hereby suspended from service of the bank with immediate effect vide rule 35 (j) of the Syndicate Bank Officers' (Conditions of Service)Rules, 1966". It transpires that the criminal case was tried and ultimately disposed of on 20-8-1990, after nearly 14 long years and the learned Special Judge, who tried the criminal case, acquitted the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt, though finding that the respondent-employee has committed certain irregularities in the matter of discounting of the bills.

(2.) THE departmental enquiry was not held during the pendency of the criminal case. When the case was disposed of on 20-8-1990, the appellant-bank issued a charge-sheet on 5-4-1991. It is seen that the respondent-employee approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 12149 of 1991 seeking for a direction to pay back wages and other consequential benefits. However, declining to entertain such a petition, this Court directed the enquiry to be completed within a period of 3 months from 5-8-1991. After applying for further extension of time, it is seen that the enquiry was concluded and a report was filed by the enquiry Officer on 23-1-1992.

(3.) THE respondent-employee filed yet another writ petition in writ Petition No. 4468 of 1992, which was dismissed on 9-9-1992 holding that the respondent has got a right of appeal against any order that may be passed by the Disciplinary Authority and this court declined to interfere at that stage.