ASHOK KUMAR KATOCH Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner, who is an employee of the respondent Bank, was put under suspension on September 28, 1989 vide copy of the letter at Annexure PA. After more than five years, when no departmental action was taken out, the petitioner moved this court by way of a writ petition which was registered as C. W. P. No. 603 of 1993. It may be stated that two officers of the respondent-Bank, namely, Vijay Kumar Sharma and Dinesh Gupta were also put under suspension on the same charges. These two officers also filed writ petition which was registered as C. W. P. No. 1299 of 1993.

(2.) IN the meantime Central Bureau of Investigation, after recording formal first information report with respect to the same charges under which the present petitioner was suspended had initiated proceedings and after completion of investigations a challan was submitted under Section 173, Cr. P. C. against all the three accused persons including the petitioner in the court of Special Judge, Tees Hazari Court, Delhi which is pending.

(3.) BOTH the writ petitions, namely, C. W. P. No. 603 of 1993 and C. W. P. No. 1299 of 1993 came up for admission before this court and C. W. P. No. 1299 of 1993 was allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn whereas C. W. P. No. 603 of 1993 filed by the present petitioner was finally disposed of directing the respondent-Bank to complete the pending departmental enquiry against the petitioner within six months. A copy of the order dated September 21, 1994 is annexed as Annexure PB, The petitioner stated that he was not present when the above orders were passed but was represented by his counsel. Thereafter a petition was moved for recalling the order on the ground that the completion of the departmental enquiry during the pendency of the criminal proceedings would prejudice the defence of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings and he would suffer irreparable loss and injury. However, the review petition No. 50 of 1994 was dismissed on the ground that the order ] dated September 21, 1994 for completion of the enquiry was passed on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be allowed to withdraw from these submissions. The present writ petition was filed inter alia on the ground that the respondent Bank did not follow the observations made by a Division Bench of this court by which it was directed that the request of the petitioner would receive due consideration in accordance with law. In the -order of this court dated September 21, 1994 reference was made to the law laid down by the apex court directing the employers to wait for the criminal trial before proceeding with departmental action. The petitioner has prayed that the order dated March 13, 1995 Annexure PE, be quashed and set aside and the respondent-Bank be directed not to proceed with the departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal trial against the petitioner pending in the court of; special Judge, Tees Hazari Court, Delhi. Annexure PE is a letter dated March 13, 1995 issued by the General Manager (Pers) Disciplinary Authority, addressed to the present petitioner in which it was noted that the orders were passed by this court dated September 21, 1994 and February 24, 1995. The Petitioner was informed that request of the Writ Petitioner to keep departmental proceedings in abeyance was not accepted and as such the departmental, enquiry initiated in this regard stands resumed immediately. The writ petitioner was directed to participate in the enquiry proceedings failing which he will be proceeded exparte