M VIDYASAGAR Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an employee under the Syndicate Bank. He has prayed for quashing the charge memo dated 15.4.1994 issued by the Deputy General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, Bangalore.

(2.) The petitioner was functioning as Sub-Manager of the Syndicate Bank, Kodambakkam branch from 4.2.1985 to 21.7.1986. During the said period, an employee had obtained loan from the bank by pledging her jewels. The jewels were to be kept in safe custody under double-lock system and one of the keys is to be with the petitioner and the Assistant Manager is the custodian of the other key. At the time of redemption of the jewels, it was suspected that the jewels had been substituted. Prosecution under Section 409 IPC was launched. During investigation of the said criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Initially the petitioner was convicted by the trial court by judgment dated 27.4.1989. Criminal Appeal No.93/89 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge,Madras by judgment dated 17.11.1989. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner had been dismissed from service by order dated 16.9.1989 on the ground of conviction in a criminal case. The petitioner had filed appeal before the departmental authorities. Subsequently, after confirmation of the order of conviction by the appellate court, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.676 of 1989 before the High Court. The appellate authority had dismissed the departmental appeal on 11.12.1989. Subsequently, however, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision by judgment dated 4.9.1992 and set aside the order of conviction and sentence on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the petitioner. After acquittal in revision, the petitioner filed a representation 3.10.1992 to reinstate him in service. However, the authority decided to hold a departmental enquiry and placed the petitioner in deemed suspension from the date of his removal, i.e., 16.9.1989, by order dated 10.5.1993. Subsequently, charge memo dated 15.4.1994 was issued to the petitioner, which is being challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the charge memo dated 15.4.1994 is based on the very same allegations which were the subject matter in the criminal case, wherein ultimately the petitioner has been acquitted. It is further contended that the proceedings have been initiated after a long delay and at any rate, there is no jurisdiction under the Regulations applicable to bank employees for re-opening of the departmental proceedings.