CHIDAMBARAM AL. Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of both parties the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent not to proceed with the departmental enquiry against him pending trial before the Special court, Madurai, in C.C. No. 33 of 1996 and 34 of 1996 on various grounds.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder : - The petitioner is an Officer working in the Indian Overseas Bank under the control of Nagapattinam Regional Office. While he was functioning as Assistant Manager/Officer in charge of Arabic College Extension Counter, on the allegation that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,70,000/ -, Delhi Special Police Establishment Madras Branch registered a case for the alleged offences under Secs. 420, 467 read with Secs. 471, 477 -A of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was suspended under Rule 12(1)(a) of the I.O.B. Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 on November 12, 1994. It is further contended that the respondent on May 19, 1995 issued a notice of show -cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The petitioner gave a reply standing that since the matter has already been taken by the C.B.I., Madras and the matter is pending in the Criminal Court, it is not fair on his part to give any explanation. For the hearing dated January 21, 1997 the petitioner sent representation requesting the respondent not to proceed with the departmental enquiry, as the matter is pending in the Criminal Court for the same charges. It is also contended that if the departmental enquiry j precedes the trial before the Special Court, he will be greatly prejudiced. On the other hand, according to him, if the trial proceeds and if necessary the respondent decides to take any departmental proceedings subsequently the respondent will not be prejudiced. Inspite of the representations made to stay the departmental enquiry till criminal trial is over, the respondent has not given any reply but he is proceeding to conduct the departmental enquiry at his choice and already two hearings are over and he has fixed the third hearing on January 21, 1997. In those circumstances, he has approached this Court for necessary direction as stated above. On January 20, 1997 this Court has entertained the writ petition and stayed the departmental proceedings.

(3.) The respondent has filed W.M.P. No. 14571 of 1993 for vacation of the interim stay granted on January 20, 1997. The case of the respondent as seen from the counter affidavit is briefly stated hereunder : - At the outset the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has no right to seek a prayer for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank not to proceed with the departmental enquiry until conclusion of the criminal case pending against him, since he has no legal right or corresponding legal obligation in the respondent Bank. It is further contended that the petitioner forged bank documents and raised loans on fake deposit receipts. He also made fictitious entries in the books of the bank and caused wrongful loss to the bank to the extent of Rs. 4.32 lakhs. He was therefore, suspended from bank service on November 12, 1994. Central Bureau of Investigation registered a criminal case against him and the charge sheet framed by them against the petitioner was filed in the Sessions Court, Trichy. The case is still pending in Court. The petitioner is being prosecuted for having committed various offences under Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, whereas the charge sheet dated May 19, 1995 issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority is in respect of various misconducts committed by him which are punishable under the Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Further, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be delayed unduly and the delinquent cannot as a matter of course seek stay of the same on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings. Moreover, the petitioner has voluntarily admitted his guilt in his letters dated October 24, 1994 and November 11, 1994 to the Regional Manager of the respondent Bank, Nagapattinam and also gave a confession letter in writing on October 27, 1994 before the Investigating Officer of the Bank and also repaid Rs. 85,000/ - in five instalments being a portion of the misappropriated amount. The petitioner also assured in writing to repay the balance of the misappropriated amount to the Bank. Inasmuch as there is an admission of the guilt and voluntary repayment of the misappropriated amount, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if the departmental proceedings are continued. In those circumstances, they prayed for vacation of the interim order as well as dismissal of the main writ petition.