RAMAKRISHNA V A Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus etc. declaring the departmental proceedings initiated against him by the respondents as illegal and void. He was working as Special Assistant in the Bank of Maharashtra, the first respondent herein, atGuntur when he was suspended on31-l-1992.Acriminal complaint dated 23-4-1992 was made against him by the first respondent to the Station House OfficeratArundalpetPoliceStationatGunturalleging fraud and misappropriation by him involving a sum of Rs.1,74,800/- and the same was registered as Crime No.282 of 1992. He does not dispute that investigation is still pending in respect of the said crime. Departmental enquiry was also initiated and he was charge sheeted on 29-8-1992. Subsequently, amended charge sheet was issued to him on 15-9-1993. The enquiry could not be proceeded with because of various adjournments sough t by the petitioner and finally when he received letter dated 5-11-1994 finding the date of enquiry to 23-11-1994, he preferred thepresentwritpetitionon21-ll-1994. It wasadmitted on 22-11-1994 and on the same day in W.P.M.P.No.25419 of 1994 departmental enquiry was stayed pending service of notice. The respondents sought vacation of the stay by way of W.V.M.P.N0.1268 of 1995. When W.P.M.P. and W.V.M.P. came up before me, the writ petition itself was directed to be posted for final disposal as the question raised was in a short compass.

(2.) The main contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner contrary to clause 19.4of the Bi-partiate Settlement of 1966. The petitioner contends that as per the said clause "departmental enquiry can be initiated against an employee on the basis of allegations for which he has sought to be prosecuted criminally if two conditions are satisfied firstly the trial should be commenced within one year of the commission of theoffence and secondly theprosecutionmust come to the conclusion that there is nocase to startprosecution proceedings". According to the petitioner, till such time the threat of criminal prosecution would be pending against him, he could not be proceeded departmentally as it would amount to compelling him to disclose his defence and thereby prejudice him in the criminal case and as such action on the part of the management would amount to denying his equal protection of law guaranteed to him in Article 14 of the Constitution of India (Para 6 of the reply-affidavit, dt. 19-8-1994) The respondents counter by contending that the said clause 19.4 does not prevent them from conducting the enquiry if the criminal case is not put on trial within an year of the commission of offence and that therefore the respondents are entitled to continue the proceedings and that even otherwise nothing prevents the authorities from conducting the proceedings even when the criminal case is pending in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and by this Court (Para 7 of the counter-affidavit of the second respondent dated 18-6-1995).

(3.) In the counter-affidavit the second respondent narrates how the disciplinary proceedings had been baulked by the petitioner after (he charge sheet dated 29-8-1992 was served on him and even after the amended charge sheet of 15-9-1993, by seeking repeated adjournments. It is relevant to notice here that the amendment to the original charge sheet dated 29-8-1992 effected by letter dated 15-9-1993 of the second respondent was only in respect of the date under charge No.3 i.e. to read "as 28-10-1991 instead of 26-10-1991". It was further clarified in the said letter that the charge sheet dated 29-8-1992 was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent as he was nominated "by the Chief Executive of the Bank in pursuance of the provisions under clause 19.14 of the Bi-partite Settlement dated 19-10-1966, as modified from time to time, vide CO circular Ax-1/ST/D/18/92, dated 27-2-1992 issued by the Chairman and Managing Director appointing Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities," It is stated in the counter-affidavit that Sri S.T.Dabir, Deputy Chief Manager, Hyderabad was appointed as Enquiry Officer initially and that before him the petitioner took several adjournments for engaging his defence representative - first Mr.G. Krishna Murthy was appointed as the petitioner's representative and then on 23-7-1993 Mr.M. Srinivasacharyulu in his place. Thereafter, on 9-2-1994 the third respondent herein was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to continue the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner. When the third respondent gave notices to the petitioner fixing the enquiry at Bangalore, the petitioner objected on the ground that it was too far away for himself and Mr.M. Srinivasacharyulu, his defence representative, and also on the ground that as criminal proceedings were still pending, the disciplinary enquiry could not be held in view of clause 19.4 of the Bipartite Settlement. By letter dated 13-5-1994 the third respondent clarified that it was the prerogative of the disciplinary authorities to decide the place of enquiry; and as regards the objection based on the said clause 19.4 he stated as follows: ;