M RAMA RAO Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER REGION IV STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE RTC COMPLEX VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while working as clerk in respondent Bank at Amalapuram Branch, by charge memo dated November 28, 1984, was imputed with misconduct of inducing one Yella Ramachandra Rao, a depositor and P Satyanarayana Reddy, another depositor for release of their gold loans - AAG 24/913 for a sum of Rs. 5000/- and AAG 24/454 for a sum of Rs. 15000/- obtained on October 29, 1979 and July 24,, 1982 respectively and made fraudulent conduct of redeeming and repledge with spurious gold ornaments, etc. and thereby it was alleged that the petitioner has committed misconduct. This act on the part of the petitioner was with an intention to misappropriate the ornament by illegal means by taking undue advantage of his employment in the bank and hs has given false information in respect of the procedure to be followed for renewal of gold loans referred to hereinbefore. Accordingly, it was a misconduct in term of paragraph 521 (4) (k) & (j) of the Sastry Award read with paragraph 18.28 of the Desai Award. The petitioner has denied the allegation and the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry, after following the procedure prescribed in that regard, on receipt of the report, show cause notice dated November 14, 1985 was issued to the petitioner stating that he has committed misconduct of a serious nature and it wararnts dismissal from service, and it was issued in terms of Paragraph 521 (4) (j) of the Sastry Award read with Paragraph 18.28. of the Desai Award. The Petitioner had submitted his explanation dated December 16, 1985. On consideration of the entire material vis-a-vis the explanation submitted by the petitioner, by proceedings dated January 16, 1986, the disciplinary authority in an elaborate order (running to nine typed pages) has found as follows:

(2.) The contention of Sri Jogayya Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner runs thus - the petitioner while in service is alleged to have committed misconduct : for the self-same charge proceedings were initiated in a criminal Court : the police laid charge-sheets in C. C. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the First Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Amalapuram for offences punishable under Sections 420, " 406, 408 and 471 IPC in Crime Nos. 119 and 122/82 of Amalapuram police station When the petitioner is being prosecuted for the self-same offences, he has got a funda mental right to be silent. If the disciplinary enquiry is conducted, he is expected to disclose his defence which would be prejudicial to his defence in the criminal cases. Therefore, the proceedings initiated for disciplinary action is not warranted. It is further contended that when the proceedings have already been initiated for the offences, the authorities, by parity of reasons have no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings for the self-same charges.

(3.) The question, therefore, is whether the authorities precluded to conduct an enquiry into the misconduct said to have been committed by the petitioner while performing his duties as a clerk in the bank. A perusal of the charge Memo, the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the enquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority clearly show that in the enquiry conducted, the petitioner has been given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. In this regard, there is no dispute. The question then emerges is whether the authority is devoid of jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry into the misconduct now found to have been committed by the petitioner. Paragraph 521 of Sastry Award read with Paragraph 18.28. of the Desai Award clearly provides the procedure for conducting enquiry into the misconduct of award staff. Admittedly the petitioner is an award staff. Therefore the authorities have jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry in terms of the procedure under the Sastry Award read with the Desai Award. The question, then, is whether it is expedient to conduct the enquiry into the self-same charges when a trial is pending in the criminal court for offences alleged against the petitioner. It is to be seen that the offences are punishable under Secs. 420, 406, 408, and 471 I.P.C. Those are the offences which the prosecution has to prove against the petitioner, beyond all reasonable doubt and it is no part of the petitioner's duty to establish his innocence. If the prosecution fails to establish its case, then the accused !s entitled to an honourable acquittal. In many a case, the Court would also acqui the accused on mere technical grounds.