JAINIS DUBEY Vs. BANK OF BARODA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lpa 405/2018 and CM No. 29735/2018 (stay)

(2.) The facts to be noticed for the dismissal of the appeal, are that the appellant has been employed with the respondent-bank as a Probationary Officer in the Foreign Exchange (Forex) Department. The respondent registered a complaint with the CBI on 9.10.2015 for the FOREX Scam, which took place in the bank. Pursuant to the F.I.R having been registered, the appellant was suspended by the respondent vide order dated 11.09.2015. Appellant was arrested on 13.10.2015. The CBI filed the charge sheet against the appellant and one, Suresh Kumar Garg, and on the basis of which the Court took cognizance vide order dated 002016 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The claim of the bank against the appellant and other persons is to the tune of Rs. 13,75,45,819.28 crores, whereas it is the case of the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the matter as he had no role to play.

(3.) According to the bank, the appellant had a strong role to play, which has led to a huge financial loss to the bank. In the writ petition so filed, the appellant had sought quashing of the order dated 10.05.2018 by which the representation of the appellant seeking stay of the departmental inquiry was rejected. The appellant had also sought that the departmental inquiry proceedings be kept in abeyance till the pendency of the criminal trial as the bare perusal of the allegations in the F.I.R and the statement of allegations in the disciplinary proceedings relates to the irregularities of FOREX transactions and are same. Thus, the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to cause prejudice to the rights of the appellant.