N VIDHYASAGAR Vs. DEPUTY MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK ZONAL OFFICE SYNDICATE BANK BUILDING GANDHI NAGAR BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 20.06.2003 made in W.P.No.1778 of 1995.) This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 20.06.2003, made in W.P.No.1778/95 by the learned single judge, dismissing the writ petition, whereby the appellant herein had challenged the charge memo, dated 15.04.1994, issued upon him by the respondent.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: THE appellant herein was employed as Sub-Manager of the Syndicate Bank, Kodambakkam Branch. During the relevant period between 04.02.1985 and 21.07.1986, one Mrs.Kamatchi Srinivasan, an employee had obtained jewel loan from the Bank, by pledging her jewels. THE jewels were to be kept in safe custody under double lock system, as per procedure followed by the Bank. Out of two keys, one was with the petitioner and the other was with the Assistant Manager and accordingly, the petitioner was a custodian of the key. It was found at the time of redemption of the jewels pledged in the Bank that the same had been substituted and hence, a criminal prosecution was initiated under Section 409 IPC. During the investigation of the case, the appellant herein was placed under suspension. Subsequently, after the trial, the appellant was convicted by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai, by its judgment, dated 27.04.1989, which was confirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, by his judgment, dated 17.11.1989, in the appeal in Crl.A.No.93/89 preferred by the appellant herein. THE Criminal revision preferred by the appellant in Crl.R.C.No.676 / 89 was allowed by this Court and the conviction and sentence imposed on him by courts below were set aside, by an order, dated 04.09.1992, on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the appellant.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.T.Karthik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the departmental proceeding is distinct from the criminal case, lodged against the appellant and the acquittal in the criminal case, would not relieve the appellant from the charges framed in the departmental enquiry. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, though the appellant herein was initially convicted by the trial court, by its judgment, dated 27.04.1989 and the appeal in Crl.A.No.93 of 1989, preferred by the appellant was also dismissed, in the revision, only, by giving benefit of doubt, the appellant was acquitted by this Court and hence, the same cannot be construed as an Honourable acquittal. Therefore, the respondent was at liberty to initiate departmental proceedings and take appropriate action against a appellant, the delinquent official, as per law.