VIJAYAN Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were accused in a criminal case. They were acquitted in the criminal case as per Exts. P-3 and P-4 judgments in O. P. No. 17972/1999 and Ext. P2 in O. P. No. 32577/1999. The acquittal was on the basis of the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in 'common Cause' v. Union of India 1996 (4) SCC 33 where the Supreme Court said that the long delay in the matter of trial of criminal cases would adversely affect the accused and such cases must be closed. Therefore, following the above decision the cases against the petitioners were closed and the petitioners were acquitted. Thereafter disciplinary proceedings were taken against the petitioner evidenced by Ext. P5 memo of charges. The only argument which was put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners is that initiation of disciplinary action after acquittal by the Criminal Court is without any jurisdiction. For the above purpose the petitioners relied on Clause 19. 5 of the First Bipartite Settlement dated October 19, 1966 which provides as follows:

(2.) NOW it is beyond doubt that an employer can take disciplinary action against an employee who was acquitted in a criminal case. This Court has held as early as in 1970 in Spadigam v. State of Kerala: 1970-ILLJ-718 (Ker) in the above case Justice MATHEW (as he then was) elaborately discussed the question of doctrine of issue estoppel and held that the above doctrine cannot be applicable in the case of an enquiry before a Tribunal conducting a disciplinary proceedings. It was also held that judgment of a Criminal Court acquitting an accused on the merits of a case would bar disciplinary proceedings against him on the basis of the same facts or that the judgment would operate as conclusive evidence in the disciplinary proceedings. The reasoning of the learned Judge was that a Criminal Court requires a high standard of proof for convicting an accused and the case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Such a standard of proof is not required finding a person guilty in a disciplinary proceedings. It is enough if there is a preponderance of probability of his guilt. In a disciplinary proceedings a person can be found guilty of a charge on materials which are inadmissible in evidence in a criminal trial. The strict rules of Evidence Act are not applicable in the disciplinary proceedings.

(3.) ALL the rulings on the subject were elaborately discussed by Justice M P. MENON in K. Babu v. Union Bank of India: 1986-II-LLJ-473 (Ker ). The above case relates to an employee of a Bank against whom a disciplinary action was taken after acquittal by a Criminal Court. The same clause in the Bipartite Settlement was relied on in the above case also. Dealing with the above aspects the learned Judge observed as follows at pp 479-480.