T P VARGHESE Vs. BRANCH MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Jayanthi S.C. Shekar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. Gopala Krishna Murthy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

(2.) The petitioner herein, who was working as a Clerk-Cum-Cashier with the respondent-Bank, filed this writ petition, inter alia, seeking for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not acceding the request of the petitioner to stop or stall the domestic enquiry being conducted at the first respondents premises in terms of Clause 19.4 of the Standing Orders of the Bank, having regard to the pendency of the criminal case in C.C.No.117 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore, as bad, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also seeks further direction not to proceed with the domestic enquiry till the completion of the criminal trial.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are that while the petitioner was working as a Clerk-Cum-Cashier at Nellore Branch with the respondent-Bank, a charge-sheet was issued on 16.1.2003, inter alia, on the allegation that by mis-using his official capacity, he trespassed into the Bank premises during the intervening night of 16/17.11.2002 and committed serious crimes such as theft, criminal misappropriation and breach of trust. Thereupon, the first respondent reported the matter to the Nellore Police and consequently the petitioner was arrested and committed to judicial custody by the Magistrate. Thereafter a charge sheet was filed in the said criminal case in C.C.No.117 of 2003 and the same is still pending for adjudication. However, it is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that the criminal case is pending in respect of the very same allegations, the second respondent herein was appointed as an Enquiry Officer whereupon he got issued a notice for conducting domestic enquiry in respect of the said allegations and the charges made thereon by issuing notice dated 21.02.2004 stating that the enquiry will be conducted in the premises of the first respondent on 15.03.2004 and also on all subsequent days till the enquiry is completed. Accordingly, the enquiry was proceeded with to some extent in the presence of the petitioner and the Presenting Officer, Zonal Office, Chennai. The petitioner had raised objections during the said enquiry that since the criminal case is pending against him, the domestic enquiry cannot be proceeded with. Though the same was initially sought to be accepted but later on the Enquiry Officer proceeded in a posthaste manner without awaiting the completion of trial in criminal case. Further, such an action is totally barred under Clause 19.4 of the Standing Order/Regulations of the respondent-Bank, which contemplates to await disposal of the criminal trial, before proceeding with the domestic enquiry. However, once again as per notice dated 21.02.2004, the enquiry was sought to be proceeded with on 05.04.2004 where the petitioner reiterated the very same objections based upon the aforesaid clause. However, the said objection was rejected and the matter is being posted for further enquiry. Hence, the Writ Petition.