RAJENDRA NATH Vs. NAINITAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Sri Rajendra Nath Is an Officer of Grade/Scale II In the Nainital Bank Ltd. (first respondent in the writ petition). By Annexure 1 Order dated 5th May, 2003 of the Assistant General Manager (P&D) and Disciplinary Authority (second respondent in the writ petition), the petitioner was suspended from the Bank's service with immediate effect. According to Annexure 1 Order, the petitioner was suspended pending Issue of charge sheet and Inquiry into his conduct in the matter of irregularities observed in the working of Sitapur Branch relating to the period he was working there as Branch Manager between 28 -05 -2002 to 09 -04 -2003. It was stated in the order that during the period of suspension, the petitioner would be paid subsistence allowance as per Clause 8.36 of Nainital Bank Officers Conduct and Disciplinary Regulations, 1988. Thereafter, Annexure 2 Memorandum dated 6'" August, 2003 issued by the second respondent was served on the petitioner. In Annexure 2 It was stated that the second respondent, as the Disciplinary Authority, had decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings for major penalties against the petitioner for the acts of misconduct reported from the Bareilly and Sitapur Branches of the Nainital Bank Ltd. It was also stated that the disciplinary proceedings were being Initiated in terms of Regulations 8.23 and 8.26 of the Nainital Bank Officers Conduct and Disciplinary Regulations, 1988. Articles of Charges framed against the petitioner and Statement of Allegations upon which the Articles of Charges were based, were annexed to Annexure 2 Memorandum. The petitioner was directed to submit his written statement of defence In respect of the said Articles of Charges and Statement of Allegations within 15 days of receipt of the Memorandum. It was also stated that after considering the written statement of defence, If any, submitted by the petitioner, an inquiry might be Instituted In respect of those Articles of Charges which were not admitted by the petitioner. The petitioner was. required to specifically admit or deny the charges in his written statement of defence. The charges framed against the petitioner were : - I. Act of wilful violation of norms of the Bank and misusing his official position. ii. Acting In a manner lacking honesty and Integrity in the discharge of his official duties. iii. Acting In a fraudulent manner. iv. Acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. v. Acting in a manner with an intention to cause pecuniary loss to the Bank. vi. Acts of unbecoming of an Officer of the Bank.

(2.) BEFORE serving the Articles of Charges and the Statement of Allegations on the petitioner, a First Information Report dated 27th June, 2003 had been lodged by the Bank against the petitioner and the case was registered as Crime No. 1693 of 2003 at Police Station, Kotwali, District Bareilly under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Another First Information Report dated 16th July, 2003 also had been lodged by the Bank against the petitioner and a case was registered as Crime No. 1061 of 2003 at Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. True copies of the said First Information Reports have been produced as Annexures 4 and 3 respectively to the writ petition.

(3.) THE main prayer in this writ petition is for quashing Annexures 1, 2 and 6 as well as the order dated 2nd January, 2004, of the Inquiry Officer (third respondent in the writ petition). There is also a prayer for commanding the respondents not to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The writ petition was flied on 1702 -2004 and it was admitted by this Court on 18 -02 -2004. While admitting the writ petition, an interim order also was passed on 18 -02 -2004 staying the departmental proceedings. In view of the said stay order passed by this Court, the departmental inquiry could not be proceeded with.