VINAY KANT THAKUR Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A charge -sheet was issued to the appellant by the employer Bank. Appellant gave a reply thereto. Such reply resulted into an enquiry. After the enquiry report was commented upon by the appellant, it was proposed by the employer to punish the appellant by deducting ten of his increments but the said punishment was not meted out, instead the same was kept in abeyance.

(2.) SUBSEQUENT thereto a fresh charge -sheet was issued which contained almost identical allegations as were levelled against the appellant in the first charge -sheet. Appellant gave a reply thereto. Thereupon an enquiry was held. Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that some of the charges stand proved and the remaining have been partially proved. Appellant gave his comments thereon and upon consideration of the fact that a charge -sheet was issued, which resulted in a tentative decision of awarding a punishment of deducting ten increments, and upon consideration of the second charge -sheet, the reply thereto, the enquiry report, comments thereon and all other materials on record, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal against the appellant. After having had failed in his attempt to assail the said order of dismissal before the appellate authority, appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which having been dismissed by a learned Single Judge, appellant is before us in this appeal. The principal contention of the appellant in the writ petition was, which has been repeated before us, that the allegations being the basis of the charges levelled against the appellant were also the basis of the first information report which was thoroughly investigated upon by the appropriate police authority but the same yielded no result and, accordingly, a report in final form was filed before the appropriate Magistrate, which has been accepted by the Magistrate. It was thus contended that once there is an opinion that there is no substance in the allegations, for the self -same allegations, it was unjust on the part of the disciplinary authority to hold the appellant guilty.

(3.) IN this connection reference was placed upon a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2129. In that case the Hon ble Supreme Court found as a fact that on a hot contest and after a regular trial the criminal court granted an honourable acquittal to the employee. The Court found as a fact that the allegations in the departmental proceeding as well as in the proceeding before the criminal court were identical and sought to be proved by the same set of evidence. In the instant case the matter did not reach the criminal court at all. It was reported to the criminal court that there is no ground for framing a charge against the appellant on the basis of allegations made in the first information report. No charge was accordingly framed and the criminal court had no occasion to apply its mind whether the allegations against the appellant, as contained in the first information report, can be proved by evidence. We, therefore, feel that placing reliance upon the said judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court is of no use to the appellant and the ground that the appellant has been absolved by the criminal court is also not available to the appellant for, at the most, he has been absolved only by the police and not by the criminal court.