TANMAY DATTA Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has prayed for a quashing of the decision dated January 15, 2016 refusing to stay the departmental proceedings initiated by the chargesheet on February 3, 2017. A prayer has also been made to "defreeze" the salary account of the petitioner so that he could access the subsistence allowance being paid to him. The dates seem to be a little confusing but I am quoting from the prayers. On going through the records, it appears that by the order dated January 15, 2016 the writ petitioner was placed under suspension for alleged "irregularities committed by him during his tenure of service at the Lakhanpur branch". It does not incorporate any decision refusing to stay departmental proceedings, since on its face, they were yet to be initiated. At page 70 there is a copy of a first information report complaining of offences being committed by the writ petitioner under Sections 468, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code made by the Officer-in-Charge, Hura Police Station in Purulia. Apparently, this resulted in the Special Case No.2 of 2016 pending before the Learned Additional Special Judge--II cum Special Court at Purulia. It appears that Charge Sheet No.78 of 2016 has been filed before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia on September 19, 2016. Thereafter, by a letter dated February 3, 2017 what was in effect a memorandum of charges was delivered to the petitioner where he was inter alia accused of being delinquent by violating the provisions of Regulations 3(1) and 3(3) of the United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 constituting misconduct in terms of Regulation 24 thereof. The specific allegations relate to opening accounts without following applications/mandates from the account holders, transferring lakhs of rupees from, 52 savings bank accounts in Lakhanpur Branch and misappropriation of the said funds for benefiting himself, his brother and to third party accounts among other things. An enquiry authority was appointed by the disciplinary authority who communicated with the petitioner on April 6, 2017.

(2.) Even though a prayer has been made in the writ petition in effect for staying of the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case, I am afraid that no such representation is on record. The same have been taken as grounds in the writ petition with supporting allegations but the only representation that I find from the records to have been made by the writ petitioner is dated January 24, 2017 for allowing him to resume his service after lifting the order of suspension and payment of arrears since the entire money has been recovered and he is on bail and chargesheet has been submitted. That apart there has been prayers for "de- freezing" his salary account, which in effect has been granted on May 4, 2017 by a coordinate bench which also stayed the disciplinary proceedings on a prima facie finding that if the writ petitioner was asked to defend the same it would prejudice his defence in the criminal case. The stay order is continuing.

(3.) Though the respondent bank had on oath made out the case by reference to the first information report, the chargesheet filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the competent criminal court and the memorandum of charges constituting the departmental proceedings, that the allegations on which the said criminal case was pending were relatable to offences under the Indian Penal Code whereas the departmental proceedings pertained to the conduct regulations of an employee of the respondent bank, it is undeniable that the imputation allegation of commission of the acts in both cases were the same. The same acts formed the basis of the first information report and the memo of charges, though with different emphasis.