N A KARNIK Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition challenges the termination of the Petitioner services. The ground of assault is that the Report of the Enquiry Officer had not been furnished to the Petitioner.

(2.) The Petitioner would ordinarily have retired on 30.6.1986. Five months prior to that he was Chargesheeted on 27.1.1986. A Departmental Enquiry was initiated and the Enquiry Officer submitted his reported on 20th June, 1986. The assailed dismissal order was passed on 26.6.1986. The Petitioner has himself mentioned that he was informed of this Order by Express Telegram dated 30.6.1986, received by him on 1.7.1986. The Respondents have disclosed that the Petitioner had applied for and was granted 22 days medical leave but even thereafter he did not report back for duty and in fact his whereabouts were not known. It was for this reason that the dismissal Order dated 26.6.1986 could not be served on him personally and was dispatched by post on that very day, and also eventually conveyed by the Express Telegram mentioned above. Criminal proceedings had also been initiated. The Metropolitan Magistrate by his Orders dated 8.5.1989 acquitted all the accused including the Petitioner. Thereupon a letter dated 7th January, 1992 was addressed to the Respondents. This Representation was rejected on 22.2.1992. Since no relief was forthcoming, this Writ Petition was filed on 23rd April, 1992.

(3.) It would not be appropriate to entertain this Writ Petition after the expiry of six years from the passing of the impugned Dismissal Order. The only explanation that is forthcoming is that the Petitioner had addressed the aforementioned letter dated 7th January, 1992. It is firmly established in service jurisprudence that the burden of proof is much greater in a criminal case than in a departmental enquiry. Generally speaking if a delinquent is found not to be guilty in the Departmental Enquiry, there is little likelihood of his being found guilty in criminal proceedings. The reverse does not hold. Irrespective of the pendency of the criminal proceedings therefore, if the Petitioner was genuinely aggrieved with the Dismissal Order, he ought to have filed the present Writ Petition soon after learning of the Dismissal Order in June, 1986. An Appeal had also been filed against the Dismissal Order which was disposed of on 20th April, 1987. Thereafter, the present Petition ought to have been filed.