INDIAN BANK Vs. DAYA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Indian Bank is directed against the judgment of first appellate court, namely, Additional Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, dated March 19, 2008. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that the criminal proceedings against the respondent are pending and during the pendency of those criminal proceedings, the Bank chose to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent. It is also not disputed that a Bipartite Agreement is in existence between the Bank and the respondent containing clause 19.4 which reads as under:

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the action of the Bank proceeding to hold a departmental enquiry against the respondent, he preferred a civil suit before the Civil Judge for permanent injunction seeking a restraint order for not proceeding with the departmental proceedings. The said suit was decreed in his favour and consequently the Bank was restrained from continuing with the departmental proceedings till the final disposal/decision of the criminal case bearing FIR No. 76/97 pending against the respondent. It was then the turn of the Bank to feel aggrieved. It preferred an appeal against the said order of the Civil Judge but with no success. The Additional District Judge maintained the order of the Civil Judge.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Apex Court vis a vis another employee, namely, Ashok Bhattacharya of the same Bank, who was also facing criminal prosecution and in whose case also departmental proceedings were initiated during the pendency of the criminal trial held that in case the criminal trial was not over within a period of one year, the Bank was at liberty to proceed with the departmental proceedings against the employee in accordance with law. Relying upon the said judgment, it is contended that a similar order ought to have been passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge in the present case as well.