IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE sth DAY OF SEP'I'E3\/IBER'~2:0.i0VV BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE__RAM 0 ° WRIT PETITION No, 13106/E2010 K E' BETWEEN: Sn' Vishnu D. Devadiga. _ , S/0. Durgappa N. DeVa§1iga..7' Aged about 50_years_... _ '-- R/0. No. 2, S:riniVas§:Ni1ajsfa E' Sidedaha11i§._?P0iSt'_Nagas}Emd1fa E Barigalorie / E M 0% ...PETI'I'IONER (By Srif'M'o1ic1. U'si:1i1af:~.Shajk191';"AdV.] AND;'g ° . ' 1. state 1ncuaTafE V' _§Rep._ by th'e_.ChaiTman -- E'\/Iad.am. Cama"'Road * V. 1' W I\11;mbaj"~-»__400021 of India Bangalore -- 560001 Local Hefad Office Rep, by the Chief General Manager No»._.85, St.Marks Road M 3. The Asst. General Manager 8: The then Disciplinary Authority State Bank of India, Administrative Unit No. 65, St.Marks Road Bangalore -- 560001 4. The Asst. General Manager _[A.dr_nin)_'and" A The present Disciplinary Authority; '7 v ' State Bank of india ~' Administrative Unit , _ No. 65, St.Marks Road Bangalore -- 560001 A 5. Sri Sudhakar _ .v Chief Manager (Admin) The Enquiry Officer_'_ ' State Bankp'ovf_Indiag _ . Networ1<i._-- 1;GRegion ?,--_V " . i Bangaiore I-'}_56O001"*T ~ ' 6 . . . RESPONDENTS
‘Th_i’s Articles 226 and 227 of
the_Constitt_ition. of, india praying to call for the entire
of including the records relating to
:Al’iI1E:ifA{;AK,~.4TfF0fn the respondents and to quash the
p made through the proceedings dt.
Officer”; of the Bank, addressed to the Defence
2.5/1/r20 i o’in charge sheet dt. 28/1/02 by the Enquiry
M
Representative of the petitioner, a true copy of which is
produced as Annex.L, and etc.
This WP. is coming on for
this day, the Court made the fo11owing:_..–._’::~.. b i
oRDE3T7
On a complaint receixfe’dV_Afroni State T’
Financial Corporation th’at–~VViE§s.2;4f4a remitted in
cash on 17/6/ petitioner did
not credit misappropriated
the complaint before the
Cubhon” the respondent, State
petitioner was discharging
duties. That cornpiairitw was registered as Cr.No.494/98
after investigation, the charge sheet dt. 26/4/99
‘Vwasei aileging the commission of offence under
Indian Penal Code and the trial having
AA comnienced on 19 / 6 / O2 is presently in its last stage.
M
2. In the meanwhile, the respondent, ._ Bank,
initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuing_.’a,_d:”c»ha_rge
sheet on 28/ 1/ 02 alleging misconduct .p
fraud involving Rs.2,44, 167/ H ‘ e.
relating to failure to account for rnoniesdd’c1fedited”
KSF C into their current acc_ot1_nt on .several ‘dates.’ V
Thus the respondent, em};21o3r’er.”‘institntede discipiinaly
action not only over V”_»..si1!__3ject matter of
criminal relating to other
miscond11ctéts’\,V V” * 1’
__ __ the petitioner, the domestic
enquiI”y<.proceedings»- icoxnrnenced for the first time by
letter cit. 25',*ioJ/07g, Annex.G, of the Enquiry Officer,
petitioner of the hearing on 13/11/07 at
"pnrsuant to which petitioner made a
nsince VC.C.No.8272/99 is pending before IV A.C.M.M.,
repres'entation dt. 13/ 11/07, Annex.H, stating that
but
Bangalore, over the very same charge and in terms of
Clause (4) of the memorandum of settlem:ent'~».vVdt.
i0/4/02 between the I.B.A. and
domestic enquiry proceedings. __be _–'.Vdefe.ijre'd
conclusion of the trial in the
disciplinary authority by':_ A"C:1.":['_'~._V¢§/"iii-/1()",:l'
Annex.K, rejected the 'petitioner on the
premise that it is position in law that
criminal prosecu_tion"as' action can
be this Writ Petition.
__ This”.V1ea1*ned_i’Counsel for petitioner contends
that of 4 of the Memorandum of
Settlement between the employer and All
_Vl3lai1.1{‘Employees Association, though the trial did
‘~nl’ot,’com’I_ne’Ip1ce within one year, nevertheless, having
lpursued the domestic enquiry after 2002, the
coummenceld on 19/6/02 and the bank having not
Ml
disciplinary proceedings were required to be deferred
until the conciusion of the trial in the criminal.
5. For a better understanding of
advanced by the learned Counsel ‘
necessary to extract paragraph ?i._o’r”- the i,
which reads thus:
” If after steps been to prosecute an
employee or to l for an
offence, he is V_within’a year of the
commi.ssidn of the c.iiene.e,j;-themanagement may
their J6?!’ if he had committed an
.»act or of “minor
below; provided that if
I the Jswas to start prosecution
proceedVi11gs,= refusehs to do so or comes to the
:eonclusioi*’i«th_attv there is no case for prosecution
open to the management to proceed
employee under the provisions set
V l out in Clauses 11 and 12 infra relating to
a discharge, but he shall be deemed to have been
duty during the period of suspension, if any,
and shail be entitled to the full wages and
MK
allowances and to all other privileges for such
period. In the event of the managerneiitap
deciding. after enquiry, not to continue
service, he shall be liable only for is
with three months’ pay and allowances
notice as provided in -I
the pendency of the proceedings
he is put on trial silica’, proceedingsb.:vsha’ll–VVbe
stayed pending the completion ofllthelitrialfiafter
which the provi~sions.v’ri1entioned in lVC’.laiise 3
above shall ll
6. gofnoticed supra, charge
No.1 in: proceedings against the
petitioner”1A’Ile§ates.p -the j charge subject matter of
criminal proceedirigsllfor commission of offence under
Secf.409 oi Vlvvhlile charge No.2 in the disciplinary
«proceedings.._ is not subject matter of criminal case. In
._th’at matter, paragraph–4 extracted supra of
the Shastry award becomes relevant for the purpose of
l the first charge and not for the second charge.
7. Admittedly complaint lodged over the first
charge is on 7/9/98, the charge sheet ison
23/4/ 99 and the trial commenced by
first witness on 19/6/02. ‘I’h_us._it ‘ 1.
the part of the disciplinary ad’tho:r_Ailty
least, that disciplinary in charge’ 9
No.2 continue immédiatelyl-o-nt’issuelof’theiarticles of
charge in the year on the
part of as to the
continuanlcéy_’0it”t’hVe to the first charge in
the Zjight. of the criminal trial.
Apparentlyl is not forthcoming.
obviously’in/th.e’,’–light”oi” the fact that the petitioner did
pyeintypoutllltffall these aspects of the matter as
the letter dt. 13/ 1 I /O7, Annex.H. I say
so44_bec..aa1.speAnnex.H is as bald as it can be except for a
ppstatement that the disciplinary authority should defer
QM
the consideration of departmental proceedings until the
completion of the trial in criminal court.
8. Reserving liberty to the petitio’i”1e1f’t:o nfiie’
comprehensive application ‘
relevant facts and materials toienable
authority to arrive at a over the
deferment or othcrvvise’ proceedings
over charge No.1 of the Shastry
Award, oi§de;9sd:””accordingly. It is
need1¢S_$€ tgu were to make a
proper -t the Adisciplinary authority
Within Jstoday, I have no reason to
be1i¢cve.thatV”th_eauthority would not consider the salne
. and pa-:s.s-.orders in accordance with law.
Sdtz
Judge