S DHANASEKARAN Vs. ZONAL MANAGER/APPELLATE AUTHORITY LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA SOUTHERN ZONAL OFFICE CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is to call for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings Ref.P&IR/D.O.n, dated 14.9.1999 as confirmed by the first respondent in his proceedings No.Nil, dated 6.1.2000, and to quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the consequential benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as sub-staff in the Life Insurance Corporation of India on 23.8.1993. On 27.2.1998 he accompanied the Assistant Administrative Officer for depositing a sum of Rs.l,86,095.55 in the Bank. When he was waiting in the queue for remitting the cash, the Assistant Administrative Officer went inside to collect some demand drafts. While so, two persons came inside the bank and informed him that a time bomb had been planted in the Bank, and therefore he left the bank premises. When he came out, those two persons kidnapped him in an auto rickshaw and forced him to take some drinks. He became totally unconscious when they took him to various places and at last stabbed him in the stomach and snatched away the money and thrown him on the road side. A passer by reported the matter to the police, and the police took him to Stanley Hospital, where he was treated as in-patient till 16.3.1998. While he was in the hospital he was placed under suspension on the complaint given by the Assistant Administrative Officer as if he had run away with cash; the complaint was given only on the next day. Even before the completion of investigation, admittedly, the departmental proceedings were initiated, charges were framed, enquiry was conducted, show cause notice was given and thereafter the petitioner was dismissed from service on 14.9.1999 and the Department ordered recovery of Rs.1,86,095.55 from him. Against that, he filed a writ petition (W.P.No.16738 of 1999), and the Court directed him to file an appeal before the appellate authority. THEreafter, an appeal was filed and that was rejected. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents submitted that these judgments will not apply to the facts of the present case. THE petitioner deliberately left the bank in order to misappropriate the entire amount. Further, there was no violation of procedure in the departmental enquiry. What is the punishment to be given is left to the discretion of the Appointing Authority-the Disciplinary Authority found it fit and proper to dismiss the petitioner. That Order cannot be interfered with in a writ petition. He also relied upon the following judgments: In Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya (1997)1 Supreme 565, the Supreme Court has held that there would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of criminal case unless charge in criminal case was of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. What is required to be seen was whether departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice delinquent in his defence at trial in criminal case. In State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena (1997)1 L.L.J. 746, the Supreme Court has held as follows: "It would be evident from the above decisions that each of them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it may not be "desirable", "advisable" or "appropriate" to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges"".It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. THE Disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. THE interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It is not in the interest of administration. It only serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest. While it is not possible to enumerate the various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasis some of the important considerations in view of the fact that very often the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long periods pending criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course."