SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been field for quashing the order of punishment dated 23.11.1998, whereby and where under the punishment of dismissal from service has been inflicted upon the petitioner herein. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 01.07.1999. The order passed in review dated 21.05.2001 has also been assailed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Cashier in the State Bank of India and had joined his first assignment in the year 1971 whereafter he continued to work to the satisfaction of all concerned. Subsequently, an FIR bearing Shri Krishna Puri P.S. Case No. 110 of 1992 was lodged against the petitioner and then he was suspended by an order dated 29.05.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case by a judgment dated 05.03.1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna. However, in the meantime, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner herein and the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 12.07.1995 on the allegation of committing fraud while being posted as a Passing Officer in the P.B. Division of Shri Krishna Puri Branch. It was further alleged that five leaves of a cheque book, received by the petitioner, was misused by the petitioner for the purposes of fraudulent withdrawal from the account of the depositors and the petitioner had passed vouchers for payment exceeding the passing power of Rs. 25,000/- vested with him apart from the petitioner having engaged in other irregularities. Lastly, it was alleged that the petitioner had failed to serve the bank with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence much against Rule 32(4) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, as retained in Rule 50(4) of the said Rules. The petitioner had submitted his reply and had also prayed for dropping the said departmental proceeding in view of the fact that no charges were made out. The departmental enquiry had then continued against the petitioner and an enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer dated 23.03.1998, whereby and where under all the allegations levelled against the petitioner were found to have been conclusively proved. A second show cause notice dated 03.04.1998 was issued to the petitioner herein enclosing a copy of the enquiry report and asking the petitioner to submit his reply and representation on the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority by the impugned order dated 23.11.1998 found the charges to have been conclusively proved as against the petitioner herein, hence imposed the punishment of dismissal from service qua the petitioner herein. The petitioner had then filed an appeal which was also dismissed by an order dated 01.07.1999 and thereafter the review of the petitioner was also dismissed by an order dated 21.05.2001.

(3.) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings were instituted on same and similar facts and the same set of evidence has been led in both the proceedings, however, the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, hence he should be granted benefit in the disciplinary proceedings, as such the order of dismissal dated 23.11.1998 is fit to be set aside. In this regard, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (Management, Pandiyan Roadways Corp. Ltd. vs. N. Balakrishnan, 2007 Supp AIR(SC) 1361), and the one reported in (G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat, 2006 5 SCC 446), paragraph no. 30 whereof is reproduced herein below:-