SUSHIL KUMAR SEHGAL Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the petitioner is proceeded against both under the criminal law and the departmental proceedings In the proceedings before the Magistrate, the charge is that the petitioner is guilty of an offence under section 409, I P. C. It is stated in the challan, which is produced as Annexure P -2 as follows : ... This amount has been embezzled by Sushil Kumar and Gurdita Ram by conspiring together and by illegal means. The keys of the strong room, grill gate and chest use with them, separately and it was their responsibility. The hand writing of both accused were sent to Questioned Document Examiner, Shimla, who has given his opinion that those are written by the accused...... -

(2.) But in the Departmental proceedings, the only article of charge against the petitioner is that he has failed to discharge his duties with due devotion and diligence, thus, jeopardizing the interest of the Bank. In the statement of Imputation of Charges, it is stated as follows : "Had he conducted physical checking of cash in the evening of 12 -4 -1994, shortage of cash of Rs 1 130 lacs on 13 4 -1994 could have been avoided. Thus, due to the above lapses on the part of Shri Sehgal, the interest of the Bank has been jeopardized. -

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that this case falls within the scope of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Dubey v M/s, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and others, (1988) 4 SCC 319. In Para 7 of the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has held as follows : "The view expressed in the three cases of this Court seem to support the position that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet, there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case, In the latter class of cases it would be open to the delinquent employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the court. Whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings would then receive judicial consideration and the court will decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial As we have already stated that it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, strait jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation. For the disposal of the present case, we do not think it necessary to say anything more, particularly when we do not intend to lay down any general guideline "