S SUNDARI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SECTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue a writ or Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent and to quash the show-cause notice issued by the general Manager, Industrial Relations Section, Personnel Wing, Head Office, canara Bank, Bangalore in his Ref. No. IRS. DP. MC. CHF. 3503:vri: dated 2. 11. 1991.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the service in Canara Bank in the year 1975 as an Officer Trainee, and she was promoted to the post of manager in the year 1983. While she was functioning as Manager of Abiramapuram branch of Canara Bank, Madras during the year 1986, she was suspended on the charges that she has passed certain cheques which were ultimately found to be forged ones. THE substance of the criminal case initiated against the petitioner is as under: "during the period of her service as Second Line Manager in Abiramapuram Branch, Madras , one Mukunthan was also working as a Clerk. In the said branch, a constituent by name Rani Venkatramani opened a Savings Bank Account bearing S. B. No. 1417 on 1. 7. 1978. THE said Rani Venkatramani after her marriage had gone to U. S. A. and visited India in the year 1984. THE Savings Bank account of Rani Venkataramani remained inoperative during that period. A sum of Rs. 21,612. 78 was the credit balance in the said s. B. Account till December, 1985. On 19. 1. 1986, according to the respondent, the petitioner, without any requisition from the account holder, issued a cheque book bearing Nos. 573041 to 573050 to the said Mukunthan. Mukunthan filled up a cheque leaf bearing No. 573041 dated 19. 1. 1986 for a sum of Rs. 21,500 and forged the signature of Smt. Rani Venkatramani on it. According to the respondent, the said Mukunthan made corresponding debit entries in the ledger sheet of S. B. Account No. 1417 of the sum of Rs. 21,500 under the withdrawal column and posted the balance amount of Rs. 112. 78 in the relevant column and he also made entires in the subsidiary sheets. THE said Mukunthan, according to the respondent, took the cheque alongwith the ledger and the subsidiary sheet pertaining to account No. 1417 to the petitioner who passed the cheque for payment and affixed her signature and she also affixed her initial by using the rubber stamp'signature verified'. She also authenticated the entries in the ledger and the subsidiary sheet by affixing her initials. THEre was one another transaction during the year 1984 wherein Mukunthan prepared an additional inter-branch advise for Rs. 50,213. 63 purported to have been sent by Bombay Fort branch showing as if a S. B. Account in the name of Rani Venkatramani at Bombay fort Branch was closed and the entire balance amount was transferred to abiramapuram branch to the account of Rani Venkataramani. He prepared a credit slip for Rs. 50,213. 63 for crediting the said amount into the S. B. Account No. 1417 and filled up a cheque bearing No. 573042 for Rs. 50,000 and forged the signature of Rani Venkatramani. He made corresponding entires in other books of accounts of the bank and the cheque was passed for payment by the petitioner. Here also she has affixed her initials for having verified the signature by putting the seal,'signature verified'she had also authenticated the ledger and subsidiary sheet by affixing her initials. According to the respondent, mukunthan received the sum of Rs. 50,000 and he paid to the petitioner a sum of rs. 14,463. THEre was another fradulent withdrawal of Rs. 40,000 from the same account by the said Mukunthan and the modus operandi was the same and the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 14,050. 65. THE Central Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation and first information report was lodged on 15. 7. 1985. A police case was also registered against the petitioner and mukunthan and the petitioner was placed under suspension on 31. 7. 1986. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner and Mukunthan and it was numbered as CC. 26 of 1987 before the IX Additional Special Judge, Madras and the criminal Court on 30. 9. 1991 delivered the judgment holding that the petitioner and Mukunthan were guilty of the of fences under Sections 120 (B), 467 (3), 471 and 420 I. P. C. and section 5 (2) read with 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. THE petitioner was awarded a sentence of two years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment to suffer 6 months imprisonment. THE Trial Court also suspended the sentence for a period of 2 months. THE petitioner preferred an appeal on the file of this Court in C. A. No. 665 of 1991. This Court in Crl. M. P. No. 5520 of 1991 in C. A. 665/91 suspended the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner on 4. 10. 1991 and she was released on bail. This court by a subsequent order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 4793 of 1992 in C. A. 665 of 1991 dated 14. 7. 1992 suspended the operation of the judgment in C. C. 26 of 1987 on the file of the DC Additional Special Judge pending disposal of the criminal appeal. THE respondent, as soon as the petitioner was convicted for the of fences above mentioned, by the IX Addl. Special judge, Madras, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why she should not be dismissed from service as per regulation 4 (h) of the Canara Bank officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as,'discipline and Appeal Regulations') and interims of Regulation 11 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations. THE petitioner was requested to make representation on the punishment to be imposed on her. THE petitioner has approached this Court contending that she has preferred a criminal appeal against the conviction and the sentence recorded by the trial Court and the judgment of the trial Court has not become final. According to the petitioner, her appeal is both against the conviction as well as sentence under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence, it cannot be said that she has been convicted of a criminal charge as found in Regulation-11 of the disciplinary and Appeal Regulations. THE further contention of the petitioner is that in view of a decision of this Court in M. Palani v. THE Executive engineer, TNEB and another, 1990 L. W. Crl. 337, the show- cause notice issued was illegal. THE case of the petitioner is that her appeal is under Section 374 of the code of Criminal Procedure and when the conviction awarded by the trial court is under the consideration of the High Court, the conviction has not become the final and no further action can be taken on the basis that the conviction has become final. It is also stated in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner that after noticing the stand of the respondent that this court had not stayed the conviction, but only suspended the sentence, she has approached this Court again by filing, Crl. M. P. 4793 of 1992 to suspend the operation of the judgment in C. C. 26 of 1987 on the file of IX Addl. Spl. Judge. In the said Crl. M. P. , the petitioner has stated that in order to avoid her being terminated form service, she has filed the petition under Section 389 (1)readwith Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to suspend the operation of the judgment of the trial court. She has, in the said petition, brought to the attention of this court that is the department terminates her service, on the basis of the conviction even during the pendency of the appeal, she will be prejudiced and put to hardship and hence, she has prayed that this court should stay the operation of the judgment including conviction, in other words to grant stay of the conviction imposed on her in C. C. 26 of 1987. According to the petitioner, this court has passed an order suspending the operation of judgment in C. C. 26 of 1987 and since the operation of the judgment is suspended, the conviction on the criminal charge made in C. C. 26/87 is also stayed and hence, regulation 11 of the Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations cannot be invoked.

(3.) IN my view, the petitioner herein has asked for the suspension of the operation of the conviction which is a part of the Judgment and when this Court has suspended the operation of the judgment, it is effect means that this Court ordered suspension of the operation of the conviction. Hence, I am not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent- bank that the order of conviction is not stayed. As laid down by andhra Pradesh High Court, the order of conviction is a part of the judgment and when the judgment is stayed, conviction portion of the judgment is also suspended during the pendency of the appeal.