STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. P ZADENGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 25. 7. 07, allowing the writ peti tion, W. P. (C) No. 12 of 2005 filed by the respondent/writ petitioner assailing the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the respondent/writ petitioner vide Memorandum dated 8. 12. 99, the order dated 28. 3. 03 inflicting the penalty of dismissal from service on him and the order dated 16. 8. 04 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the departmental appeal filed by the respondent/writ petitioner and thereby interfering with the impugned order for dismissal and its confirmation by the appellate authority vide order dated 16. 8. 04 only on the ground of contravention of Clause 4 of Annexure-II to the Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter refers to as "mou. ") dated 10. 4. 02 and allowed the disciplinary authority to act in terms of the said clause in a matter as comprehended therein as soon as the trial of the pending cases against the respondent/writ petitioner are concluded. In the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 25. 7. 05, it is clearly made that while disposing of the writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 12 of 2005, the learned Single Judge did not express his opinion on any other contentions advanced by the parties.

(2.) HEARD Mr. M. M. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , while the departmental proceeding was proceeding against the respondent/writ petitioner for the said charges, he was facing trial of three number of police cases registered against him in the Aizawl P. S. on the basis of three different F. I. Rs. lodged against him for the same facts and he was arrested but later on released on bail. It is the case of the respondent/writ petitioner that in the said three police cases, a number of documents relating to the transaction were seized by the police in course of their investigation and that the departmental proceeding against him on the same fact/charge during pendency of the criminal proceeding caused serious prejudice to him. The enquiry officer submitted the report stating that the charges framed against the respondent/writ petitioner were proved and the disciplinary authority also came to the tentative conclusion that it was a fit case for dismissing the respondent/writ petitioner and accordingly the respondent/writ petitioner was directed to show cause as to why the proposed punishment of dismissal from service should not be inflicted upon him. After considering the show cause statement submitted by the respondent/writ petitioner and also the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority finally imposed by passing the impugned order dated 28. 3. 2003, major penalty for dismissal from service, to the respondent/writ petitioner, against which an appeal was filed before the appellate authority who also, after giving personal hearing, had dismissed the appeal by the impugned order dated 16. 8. 2004. Hence, the respondent/writ petitioner filed W. P. (C) No. 12 of 2005. It is also stated that the respondent/writ petitioner had been acquitted in one of the criminal cases by the trial court, i. e. the Court of ADM (Judicial) Aizawl.