P RAVIDAS KAMATH Vs. SYNDICATE BANK MANIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court for restraining the respondent from going ahead with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 13-1-1993 (Annexure-C) until the conclusion of the prosecution in Special Case No. 4 of 1992 and 5 of 1992 in the Court of special Judge at Bombay. The petitioner was admittedly working as a Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank at Marol branch, Andheri (E), Bombay. When the Central Bureau of investigation registered cases against him which culminated in the charge-sheet dated 26-2-1992 filed under Sections 120-B, 420 and 34 of the IPC read with Sections 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2), 13 (l) (d)and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Admittedly, the trial is pending. The respondent-Management having waited for 5 years to know the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, ultimately initiated disciplinary proceedings by serving a charge-sheet dated 28-1-1993 on the petitioner. Pursuant whereof, the petitioner filed his reply which is to the following effect:

(2.) THE sole question involved herein is whether the disciplinary proceedings should be stayed till the final conclusion of the trial commenced against the petitioner. The Supreme court in its latest decision in the case of State of Rajasthan v b. K. Meena and Others, on consideration of its earlier judgments in the cases of Kusheshwar Dubey v M/s. Bharat coking Coal Limited and Others , Jang Bahadur Singh v Baid nath Tiwari, Tata Oil Mills Company Limited v Its Workmen , delhi Cloth and General Mills Limited v Kushal Bhan and S. A. Venkataraman v Union of India , has held that:

(3.) IN Paragraph 17 of its judgment, the Supreme Court has held: