VAIRAVAN C Vs. CHAIRMAN PANDYAN GRAMA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, dated November 3, 1995, asking the petitioner to attend the departmental enquiry, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and issue direction to the respondents to suspend the departmental enquiry till the finalisation of the criminal cases filed in C.C. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1995 on the file of Special Judge for CBI and State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cases, Madurai.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, in 1979, the petitioner started his career as junior assistant-cum- cashier in the first respondent-bank. In August, 1984, he was promoted as senior clerk-cum-cashier. In 1991, he was transferred to Ervadi. In May, 1993, basing on certain allegations, the petitioner, the Manager and the Officer of the Ervadi Branch were placed under suspension. Subsequently, in the end of 1993, the officer was reinstated on the payment of the alleged misapproriated amount. Likewise, the Manager of the Ervadi Branch was also reinstated on the payment of misappropriated amount. As far as the petitioner is concerned, inspite of repeated representations he is still under suspension. For the alleged misappropriation, criminal proceedings were initiated as against the petitioner in C.C. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1995 under Sections 409, 477A, 201 and 420 of IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI and State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cases, Madurai. In the aforesaid criminal cases, chargesheets have been filed. For the same set of allegations, departmental proceedings, were also initiated and charges have been granted in the proceedings, dated November 11,1993. The charges framed in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal cases are one and the same though the chargememo has been issued as early as in 1993, till August, 1995, no further steps have been taken in the departmental enquiry. After filing of the chargesheet in the criminal cases on August 22, 1995, the petitioner was informed the appointment of enquiry officer and the commencement of the enquiry. Since the subject matter of the criminal case and the departmental enquiry is one and the same, any finding in the departmental proceedings will have a direct consequence in the criminal case. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation on November 2, 1995, for suspending the departmental proceedings and the same was rejected by the impugned order of the second respondent, dated November 3, 1995. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) The first respondent-bank has filed a counter-affidavit disputing the various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the internal investigation revealed the indulgence of the petitioner in the fraudulent activities and misappropriation of Rs. 1,31,800. As the investigation revealed that there was no mala fide against the other two officers, but only negligence, the bank decided to revoke their suspension and reinstate them in service provided they make good a sum of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 2,303. 75 respectively. Therefore, the case against the two officers is different from the case against the petitioner. As far as the departmental enquiry is concerned, petitioner has been charged with 13 counts of charges, whereas only 9 counts out of this is the subject matter of the criminal proceedings. Further, it is settled law that criminal law proceedings is not a bar to the departmental proceedings because the object of both the proceedings are different. With these averments, the first respondent-bank prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.