INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. P GANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Senior Counsel for the parties, and by consent of the parties Writ Appeals as well as Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing.

(2.) THESE writ petitions are filed challenging the action of the respondent-bank in proceeding with the domestic enquiry with regard to the charge-sheet dated 21. 02. 2005, while criminal case on the same set of allegation is pending against the writ petitioners.

(3.) THE following facts lead to the filing of these writ petitions: the writ petitioners are the office-bearers of the Indian overseas bank Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe Employees Welfare Association. The association is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It is the case of the petitioners that one Mr. A. Krishnan, who was also an office-bearer of their association, floated another association and named it as All India Overseas Bank Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe employees Welfare Association. The registration under similar name was the subject matter of challenge before the High Court in W. P. No. 10030 of 2001 and this Court vide its Judgment and Order dated 23. 01. 2004 allowed the petition declaring the registration of the association with the same name resembling the petitioner's association as illegal. It is the further case of the petitioners that one Mr. L. Balasubramaniam, President All India Overseas Bank employees Association, who is impleaded in the writ petitions as 3rd respondent and Mr. A. Krishnan, started to interfere with the activities of the writ petitioner's association. According to the petitioners on 27. 01. 2005 at about 12. 30 pm when the General Secretary of the petitioner's association went to the central office of the bank to discuss about the welfare measures to be taken for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees of the bank, he and his associates were abused by caste and physically assaulted by mr. L. Balasubramaniam and some other persons. As a result the General secretary and the other officebearers of the petitioner's association received injuries and were admitted in the General Hospital. It is alleged by the petitioners that Mr. L. Balasubramaniam having attacked them got himself admitted in National Hospital, a private hospital, and lodged a private complaint. The General Secretary of the petitioner's association also lodged a complaint on 27. 01. 2005 at about 19. 15 hours against Mr. L. Balasubramaniam before the F4-Thousand Lights Police Station, Chennai under Sections 3 41 and 323 of IPC read with Section 3 (1) of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the same has been registered as crime No. 163 of 2005, and a charge sheet has also been filed before the XIV metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. It is stated that mr. L. Balasubramaniam had also lodged a complaint against the office-bearers of the petitioner's association and the complaint was registered in the same police station under Crime No. 162 of 2005 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 427, 307 and 507 (II) of the Indian Penal Code, and a charge sheet has also been filed in that case before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Both the criminal cases are pending. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent-bank without conducting any preliminary investigation, straightaway issued a statement of imputation and started domestic enquiry against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners had indulged in unruly, riotous behaviour, and allegedly committed willful act of criminal assault on mr. L. Balasubramnaiam. The statement of imputation is solely based on the criminal complaint lodged by Mr. L. Balasubramaniam. The petitioners contend that inasmuch as the criminal case against the petitioners is pending, and the disciplinary proceedings are founded on the same set of allegations, petitioners will suffer undue hardship if disciplinary proceedings are allowed to proceed especially when Mr. L. Balasubramaniam is also facing the charge with regard to the same incident before the criminal court. The petitioners have therefore filed the above writ petitions seeking a direction against the 1st respondent-bank to defer the disciplinary proceedings with regard to the charge sheet dated 21. 02. 2005 issued to the petitioners until the completion of criminal trial in respect of Crime Nos. 162-163 of 2005 on the file of F-4, thousand Lights Police Station, Chennai.