GIRISHCHANDRA SURYAKANT SHUKLA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an officer of the respondent-Bank, filed this Special Civil Application and prayed for stay of further proceedings in the departmental enquiry instituted against him by respondent-Bank. Further prayer has been made for direction to the respondent-Bank to reinstate the petitioner in service of the Bank, subject to ultimate result of criminal proceedings and/or departmental proceedings against him with all backwages and all other benefits due to him on the basis of his having been continued in service without break.

(2.) The petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry by respondent-Bank vide order dated 7.12.1990. Vide memo dated 20.4.1993, the petitioner was served with articles of charges. The inquiry proceedings have been started, as per petitioner's own case, from 27.7.1993. The petitioner, earlier to this Special Civil Application, filed Special Civil Application No. 1094 of 1991 before this Court and prayer has been made therein for quashing and/or setting aside the order of suspension pending departmental enquiry, to pay the petitioner full salary and not only subsistance allowance and for various other reliefs. The said Special Civil Application came to be withdrawn by petitioner on 16th September, 1992. In response to same charges, the petitioner contended that, CBI filed chargesheet against him in the Criminal Court and criminal case is pending. This chargesheet was filed by CBI on 25th March, 1993, i.e., after initiation of departmental enquiry against him. Even after filing the chargesheet, the petitioner has continued to participate in the enquiry but after receipt of letter of respondent-Bank dated 15.4.1994, intimating the appointment of new enquiry officer, he filed this Special Civil Application and prayer has been made as aforesaid.

(3.) Shri A.H. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are initiated simultaneously on the same charges and in case the departmental proceedings are not stayed, the petitioner will be required to disclose his evidence/defence in the departmental enquiry which may be utilized in the criminal case filed by CBI against him and to avoid this situation the departmental proceedings are required to be stayed. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on decision of this Court in the case of Kusheshwar Dubey vs. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd., reported in 1989 (1) GLH 26.