Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2008 (4) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2008 (4) TMI 767 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the departmental proceedings and dismissal order.
2. Impact of criminal acquittal on departmental proceedings.
3. Proportionality of the punishment imposed.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Departmental Proceedings and Dismissal Order:
The appellant was dissatisfied with the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision, which upheld the dismissal order passed by the learned Single Judge. The respondent, an employee of the appellant Bank, faced 12 charges, including authorizing unauthorized cash credits and sanctioning loans to close relatives. Despite being acquitted in criminal proceedings u/s 120B, 420, 468 IPC, and u/s 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the departmental proceedings continued, leading to his dismissal. The High Court quashed the initial dismissal, directing reconsideration, but the dismissal was re-imposed. The Division Bench later directed fresh consideration of the respondent's case, emphasizing the need to consider the judgment of acquittal in the criminal appeal.

2. Impact of Criminal Acquittal on Departmental Proceedings:
The Supreme Court noted that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically bar departmental proceedings. The High Court had found that the respondent did not derive any pecuniary benefit, and the charges of misappropriation were not proven. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of superior courts in interfering with findings of fact by the Enquiry Officer is limited. The principle that departmental proceedings can continue despite criminal acquittal was reiterated, citing precedents like Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat.

3. Proportionality of the Punishment Imposed:
The High Court had directed reconsideration of the punishment, noting that the original authority had imposed a minor penalty, which was modified by the appellate authority. The Division Bench highlighted that the punishment should be proportionate to the misconduct, which in this case was procedural irregularity rather than financial misfeasance. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's findings, emphasizing that the respondent's actions were inadvertent mistakes without fraudulent intent. The Court concluded that it was not a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction u/s 136 of the Constitution, especially since the respondent had reached superannuation.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the appropriate authority was directed to impose a suitable penalty considering the respondent's age of superannuation.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates