P MANICKAM Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. The prayer in the writ petition is for issue of a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from proceedings with the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to a charge sheet Memorandum dated 22.09.2001 and the Memorandum dated 17.12.2008 till the finalization of the criminal case in C.C.No.331 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Salem.

(2.) THE petitioner is an employee of the first respondent bank and joined the services of the bank on 19.02.1981 as part-time sweeper, subsequently promoted as Substaff/Daftary and posted in Vazhapadi branch during 1989. THE petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 22.09.2001, alleging that on 19.08.1999, he had made a cash scroll entry No.20 for LAD 1498 for Rs.30,000/- and issued a token to a woman who had impersonated as Lakshmi and failed to identify the depositor, while issuing the token which has resulted in the premature closure of DRIC for Rs.30,000/- and payment of cash of Rs.45,200/- pending adjustment of LAD 4018 sanction to Smt.Lakshmi for Rs.35,000/- and further it was alleged that the petitioner failed to ensure safe keeping of records, which resulted in removal of photograph from a closed DRIC of Smt. Lakshmi and also failed to arrange closed LAD documents and deposit accounts forms date-wise rendering checking of documents very difficult, which resulted in missing/tampering of records. THE petitioner was granted 10 days time for submitting his explanation. THE petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.10.2001 denying the allegations. In respect of the same transaction, the respondent bank lodged a complaint before the District Crime Branch, Salem, which was registered as Crime No.13/2001 under Section 420 IPC and after investigation a charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Salem in C.C.No.331/2004.

(3.) THE respondent bank has filed a counter affidavit contending that the writ petition is not maintainable, it is an abuse of process of law and the petitioner while entering service agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the employment including receipt of salary and other benefits, which are governed by the Bipartite Settlement between the Bank and the Union of Workman. THE contract of employment is also in the nature of contract and any transaction as a process of enforcement of a contract cannot be subject matter of writ petition. After narrating about the charge and the supplementary charge against the petitioner, it is submitted that the criminal case is pending trial before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.6, Salem, which is based on the complaint lodged by the bank on 05.09.2001. After relying on Clause No.4 Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002, the respondent bank would submit that there is nothing wrong in parallel proceedings being taken on the same issue by placing reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in such matters. More particularly the decisions in Capt. M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and another AIR 1999 SC 1416, Tata Oil Mills Co Ltd Vs. Its Workman AIR 1965 SC 155, THE Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd Vs. Kushal Bhan AIR 1960 SC 806. It is further submitted that where charges in both the criminal proceedings and departmental enquiry are different and where criminal cases are likely to take considerably long time the departmental proceedings could be finalized by passing appropriate final orders. It is further contended, the fact that the bank did not proceed with the disciplinary enquiry for nearly 7 years cannot act as a bar for conducting the enquiry at this point of time. Based on the above pleadings the respondent bank sought for dismissal of the writ petition.