RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has been raised here is the legality and desirability of the disciplinary proceedings that have been initiated against the petitioners, consequent to the memorandum of charges that have been issued to them. The first petitioner is the Senior Manager of a Public Sector Bank (first respondent herein) and the second and third petitioners are respectively the Manager and Officer of the said Institution. The petitioners are now implicated in C.C. No. 10 of 2002 as accused 4 to 6, now pending before the C.B .I.-II Special Court, Ernakulam, along with certain others. The contention raised is that since charges have been laid and thus when the criminal proceedings are already in progress, disciplinary proceedings concerning the identical issues are likely to cause great prejudice to them. Their defence in the criminal case is likely to be exposed, which would be opposed to the principles of adversorial procedure. Counsel Sri. S.P. Chaly had appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

(2.) After the charge sheets were issued, formally proceedings have been initiated. The Enquiry Officer had noticed that the petitioners had denied the charges levelled against them. At that point, the petitioners had represented that they were making a request to the Disciplinary Authority that such proceedings are to be kept in abeyance. However, the request was rejected and the petitioners had thereupon filed a Writ Petition as W.P.(C) No. 23282 of 2004. The petition was disposed of by directing the petitioners to appraise the concerned respondents the reasons for a plea that it was not advisable, desirable and proper to have departmental enquiry before the trial of the criminal case. The Bank was to consider it on merits before proceeding with the enquiry.

(3.) Representations, in this light, had been submitted, but by Exts.P24, P25 and P26, the General Manager of the Bank had informed the petitioners that the request was being turned down. It had been observed that the charges as against the employees were for violation of Conduct Regulations whereas the C.B.I, has framed charges for the criminal misconduct and there is no need to keep in abeyance the departmental enquiry.