JATINKUMAR KANCHANLAL SHAH Vs. VARDHMAN SAHKARI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Branch Manager of Vardhaman Sahakari Bank Ltd., Kareli Baug Branch, Vadodara filed this writ petition before this Court challenging order dt. 8-4-1994 of the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 143 of 1994 where the said Court was pleased to dismiss the application of the petitioner for stay of departmental inquiry instituted against him in pursuance of notice of inquiry dated 10-1-1994 in respect of charges mentioned in the chargesheet-cum-show cause notice dated 11-12-1993 till hearing and final disposal of the suit, as well as the order of Joint District Judge, Vadodara dated 27-5-1994 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 103 of 1994 confirming the order of the trial Court. The petitioner in the suit has come up with the case that in respect of same charges criminal proceedings have also been initiated by the Bank and as the departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding arise out of same facts and circumstances, the departmental enquiry should be stayed till proceedings are over before Criminal Court.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 is a financial institution dealing with the finance and banking activity. It is the case of the Bank that the petitioner, Branch Manager, is involved is defalcation of Rs. 13,00,000-00, therefore, the criminal complaint was lodged against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Vadodara for the offences under Secs. 403, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 IPC. The learned Magistrate has referred this complaint to the police for investigation under Sec. 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The complaint is still under investigation and ultimately until-now no chargesheet has been put before Criminal Court. Before filing criminal complaint the Bank Authority had also made a preliminary inquiry against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner had been found involved in serious defalcation of fund of the huge amount and, therefore, his explanation was also called for. The petitioner during the course of furnishing his explanation had admitted his fault or the act of defalcation in writing and not only that but he had also further carried out and implemented by paying some amount to the Bank towards the misappropriation of the Bank amount and also prayed for giving instalments for the propose of making payment for rest of defalcation funds. The chargesheet-cum-show cause notice dated 11-12-1993 was served upon the petitioner for embezzlement and defalcation of Rs. 13,62,162-00. The charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner only with a view to ascertain whether the petitioner has committed misconduct or not ? And if committed, whether his act unbecoming of an employee of financial institution like respondent No. 1 Bank or not ?

(3.) The learned trial Court after considering the pleadings and documentary evidence produced on record and hearing the learned Counsels of both the sides came to conclusion that the plaintiff had no prima facie case and balance of convenience is also not in his favour. Application for the ad interim temporary injunction filed by the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 8-4-1994 and refused to stay the departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial Court has also been dismissed by the appellate Court; hence this writ petition. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the both the Courts below have committed a serious illegality in refusing to stay the departmental proceedings when the criminal proceedings arise out of same set of facts and circumstances pending before the Criminal Court. In support of his argument the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. J. Sunderrajan and Anr. v. Unit Trust of India and Anr., reported in 1993(1) LLJ 168 and decision of this Court in the case of N. R. Waghela v. Principal, Sainik School and Ors., reported in 1990(2) GLH (UJ) 16.