R VENKATACHALAPATHY Vs. SENIOR MANAGER INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel appearing for the appellant. Perused the records, including the order of the learned single Judge. The appellant is the original writ petitioner. In the writ petition, he has prayed for quashing the departmental proceedings initiated agianst him, in respect of which a First Information Report (F. I. R.) has also been lodged.

(2.) THE appellant was appointed as Sub Staff in the Indian Overseas Bank, Madurai in the year 1993. He has been working in the Madurai-Medical College Extension Branch, Madurai. On 20. 12. 2005, he was suspended from service for encashing certain demand drafts issued in favour of third parties. On 14/8/2006, the respondent issued a charge sheet to the appellant. The basis of the charge sheet is that he has stolen two demand draft leaves and fraudulently prepared two drafts and thus, he has misappropriated the Bank's money to the tune of Rs. 5,95,000/ -. The Bank lodged a police complaint against the appellant on 8/9/2006 and a criminal complaint was registered in Crime No. 38 of 2006 under Sections 380, 420, 406 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was arrested on the same day and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, on 14. 10. 2006, he was granted bail. He has also remitted the amount on 15/12/2006 without prejudice to his contentions. In pursuance to the charge sheet, the Bank issued a charge memo on 14. 8. 2006 and initiated departmental proceedings against the appellant. In the writ petition, the departmental proceedings are challenged on the ground that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are one and the same and therefore, the departmental proceedings are liable to be stayed. By the impugned order, the learned single dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the charges framed against the appellant in the criminal proceedings and the charges in the departmental proceedings are on the same set of facts and hence, the departmental proceedings have to be stayed. He submitted that though the purposes of departmental enquiry and prosecution are different, what is required to be seen is that whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence in the criminal case and in the instant case, the same defence is available to the appellant in both the proceedings and the evidence would also be the same. According to him, the delinquent cannot be compelled to disclose the defence available to him in the criminal proceedings at this stage and therefore, the disciplinary proceedings will have to be stayed. In support of his submission, learned counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. , A. I. R. 1999 S. C. 1416.