Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1630 - SC - Indian LawsMisconduct - gross irregularities and misconduct including of misplacing the clearing instruments relating to various customers - Whether the High Court was justified in directing stay of the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Appellant-Bank against the Respondent until the closure of recording of prosecution evidence in the criminal case instituted against the Respondent, based on the same facts? HELD THAT:- It is well-settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. However, no straightjacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters on case to case basis. The contour of the approach to be adopted by the Court has been delineated in series of decisions. This Court in THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC VERSUS MG VITTAL RAO [2011 (11) TMI 419 - SUPREME COURT] has summed up the same and held that Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. Indisputably, the alleged misconduct has been committed as far back as May 2006. The FIR was registered on 5th December, 2006 and the charge-sheet was filed in the said criminal case on 6th February, 2007. The contents of the charge-sheet are indicative of involvement of the Respondent in the alleged offence. Resultantly, the criminal Court has framed charges against the Respondent as far back as 12th June, 2007. The trial of that case, however, has not made any effective progress. Only 3 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, out of 18 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet filed before the criminal Court. Indeed, listing of criminal case on 133 different dates after framing of charges is not solely attributable to the Respondent. From the information made available by the Additional Superintendent of Police on affidavit, it does indicate that at least 26 adjournments are directly attributable to the accused in the criminal case. That is not an insignificant fact. Whether Clause 4 of the Settlement would denude the Appellants from continuing with the disciplinary proceedings pending against the Respondent? - HELD THAT:- On the plain language of Clause 4, it is not a stipulation to prohibit the institution and continuation of disciplinary proceedings, much less indefinitely merely because of the pendency of criminal case against the delinquent employee. On the other hand, it is an enabling provision permitting the institution or continuation of disciplinary proceedings, if the employee is not put on trial by the prosecution within one year from the commission of the offence or the prosecution fails to proceed against him for want of any material. In the fact situation of the present case, it is possible to take the view that the first part of Clause is attracted. In that, Respondent has been put on trial in connection with the alleged offence, by framing of charges on 12th June 2007. That has happened after one year from the commission of the offence. Accordingly, we exercise discretion in favour of the Respondent of staying the ongoing disciplinary proceedings until the closure of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses cited in the criminal trial, as directed by the Division Bench of the High Court and do not consider it fit to vacate that arrangement straightway - Appeal allowed in part.
|