BHASKAR MONDAL Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court:-Submission of the petitioner : Out of the self-same set of allegations, the respondents had initiated a departmental proceedings, as well as had lodged FIR, on the basis whereof, after investigation, the case has since been committed before the Special Court for trial under section 409 of IPC. In the circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for stay of the departmental proceedings on the ground of prejudice of defence in the criminal trial. Relying on the facts and the material produced before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sadananda Ganguly, had also sought for quashing of the criminal case, as well as the disciplinary proceeding. According to him, the FIR lodged and the charge sheet issued in the departmental proceeding, do neither disclose any offence nor disclose any misconduct. The mala fide is apparent on the face of the records and the material produced. He had elaborated the grounds, on which he is seeking both the reliefs. He attempted to point out how he would be prejudiced in his defence. He has relied on the decisions in R. P. Ramajayam v. T. N. Cements Corporation Limited, 1994(1) SLR 71; Ashok Kumar Katoch v. Oriental Bank of Commerce & Others, 1996(4) SLR 643, B. K. Aggarwal v. State Bank of India & Others, 1999(5) SLR 743 and Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Minis Limited, 1999(2) SLR 33, AIR 1999 SC 1016, in support of his contentions. Submission of the Respondents :

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Subrata Roy, on the other hand, contends that the question of quashing of the criminal proceedings cannot be maintained in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further contends that both the First Information Report and the charge sheet issued in the departmental proceedings, disclosed prima facie case of offence or misconduct, as the case may be. Until a triable issue is raised, and on the face of the record, it is apparent that the allegations cannot be sustained, those jurisdiction can be exercised, but it cannot be exercised in case it is otherwise. That apart, the relief cannot be asked for having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case. In respect of the other contentions, he points out from Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) as well as various other decisions, that nowhere it was laid down that when a criminal case is pending, a departmental proceedings cannot be proceeded with. On the other hand, it lays down that it can be proceeded with. According to him, if there is no legal bar in proceeding with the departmental proceedings, then there cannot be a justification for staying a departmental proceeding, pending criminal case. The stay can be granted only in appropriate cases having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case to be determined by the Court. There being no straight-jacket formula and there being no legal bar, the Court may or may not grant the stay. He further contends that the scope of the criminal case and the standard of proof required therein and the allegations required to be proved to bring home the charges are completely different and distinct from those required or involved in the disciplinary proceedings. As such there is no bar in proceeding with the departmental proceedings. The allegations of misconduct and the allegations of the offence are not similar. Those are distinct and different. One act or omission may give rise to different consequences. It might result in a misconduct or it might be an offence triable by a Criminal Court. He sought to distinguish the decisions cited by Mr. Ganguly and pointed out that in none of the decisions it was held that there was legal bar in proceeding with the departmental proceedings pending trial before a Criminal Court. Facts :

(3.) In order to appreciate this situation, we may briefly refer to the facts in short. On 24th June, 1999, FIR was lodged by UCO Bank without naming any person. Subsequently, on enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner was responsible for the charges. On the basis thereof, the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Criminal Court, which had ultimately granted him bail. The warrant of arrest was issued on 23rd November of 2000 and the petitioner was brought on arrest on 28th of December, 2000. On 2nd of January, 2001, the petitioner was arrested and thereafter a charge sheet was issued to him on 12th March, 2001. The criminal case appears to be based on the self-same set of facts. An investigation was made by the bank through its internal machinery and a report was submitted on 3rd of March, 1999. In the said report, it was pointed out that all the persons, who were present in the branch at the relevant time were responsible for the loss of bank's record and also asked for report of handwriting expert. The report of the handwriting expert was obtained on 28th April, 2000.