SHYAM LAL SANKHLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is L. D. C. working with the respondent No. 3 bank. An F. I. R. was lodged against the petitioner on 6. 5. 99 regarding the amount which was received vide receipt no. 2282 to 2300 and receipt no. 19059 of Book No. 23. THE allegation against him is that by collecting amount from poor members of the Bank, he mis-appropriated amount of Rs. 5,81,356/- in all. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against him before the competent criminal court. According to the petitioner, the evidence of the prosecution is being recorded before the competent criminal court.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that for the same charges which are levelled against him in the criminal court, the respondent Bank started the departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, "the Rules' ). Notice of demand of justice was served by the petitioner to the respondent bank through his lawyer on 26. 12. 99. The said remained unreplied, therefore, revision was filed under Section 128 of the Rajasthan Co- operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, "the Act' ). After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Registrar dismissed the revision petition on 30. 12. 2000 (Annex. 6 ). The same is challenged by the petitioner by way of this petition which is labelled under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) AT this stage, I would like to narrate the brief facts of Kusheshwar's case (supra ). The appellant Kusheshwar was an employee of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. working as Helper in 1986. The allegation against him was that he physically assaulted his supervising officer Shri S. K. Mandal. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal prosecution. On facts of that case, in a suit filed before the Munsif, the proceedings in the disciplinary proceedings were stayed till the final disposal of the criminal case. The appeal filed by the employer before the Appellate Court was also dismissed. The orders passed by the Courts below were challenged in revision before the High Court and the High Court held that the Courts below were in error in granting the injunction. In appeal filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on facts of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Courts below were right in staying the disciplinary proceedings and the High Court was not right in interfering with the orders passed by the Courts below.