Supreme Court: In an appeal filed by State Bank of India (‘SBI’) against the judgment and order dated 7-01-2009 passed by the Gauhati High Court, wherein the Court allowed the appeal of the respondent against the order of dismissal from bank services and the rejection of the departmental appeal, the division bench of Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol*, JJ. while setting aside the impugned Judgment dated 07-01-2009 and the order dated 25-06-2005 , held that
-
Clause 4 of the Memorandum of Settlement (‘MoS’) dated 10-04-2002 does not envisage a complete standstill of departmental proceedings because of the pendency of criminal proceedings.
-
The stay of the criminal proceedings is desirable, but the same is to be affected only for a reasonable period. The nature of proceedings being wholly separate and distinct, acquittal in criminal proceedings does not entitle the delinquent employee for any benefit in it or automatic discharge in departmental proceedings.
Background:
The respondent was employed in the State Bank of India (‘SBI’) as Assistant at the Dawrpui Branch, Aizawl. Three government retailers lodged a complaint with the Police that their challan deposits with the said Branch had not been entered into the cash receipt scroll. The District Civil Supply Officer also lodged a complaint that a certain retailer had taken the delivery of particular food stuff using a fake challan. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent with the issuance of a Memorandum, wherein it was alleged that he had received Rs.61,908 for a deposit on 19-04-1996 in respect of which a challan was issued, but the amount never deposited in the respective account. Two other similar occurrences dated 21-02-1995 regarding Rs.24,640 and Rs.27,412 were also alleged. Three different FIRs stood registered against him, under which he was arrested, but later released on bail. In his written show cause to this Memorandum, the employee contended that the disciplinary proceedings should be either dropped or closed since criminal cases were pending against him, arising from the same set of transaction.
The Bank proceeded to appoint an inquiry officer who, in his report, submitted that three out of four charges stood established. The employee, again denying the charges, filed a response to that but was eventually dismissed from the services at the Bank, vide the order of dismissal dated 28-03-2003. The departmental appeal filed by him, after a due opportunity of hearing, was dismissed on 16-08-2004.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the departmental appeal, the employee filed a petition before the Gauhati High Court, questioning whether, in view of the MoS, the disciplinary proceedings against the employee ought to have been stayed or not. The High Court observed that clause 4 of the said document was clear and unambiguous and, therefore, it was not correct for the bank to have subjected him to disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of criminal proceedings. However, the disciplinary authority can act under the clauses of the MoS after the criminal cases against the employee having reached a conclusion, one way or the other. Thereafter, dissatisfied by the order of the Single Judge, an appeal was filed, wherein the Division Bench upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and confirmed the setting aside of the disciplinary proceeding.
Issues:
-
Does Clause 4 of the MoS dated 10-04-2002 create a bar on departmental proceedings continuing when the person subjected thereto is being tried before a criminal court for offences of the same origin?
-
Does acquittal in some of the connected proceedings entail a benefit in the surviving proceedings? Further, inuring a right upon the delinquent employee of automatic discharge in disciplinary proceedings?
Analysis:
The Court took note of M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679, and said that it may be desirable or, in certain circumstances, advisable for disciplinary proceedings to be stayed when criminal proceedings are ongoing; however, stay is not “a matter of course” and is only to be given after consideration of all factors, for and against.
Further, the Court referred to SBI v. Neelam Nag, (2016) 9 SCC 491, wherein the following essentialities were culled out for the operation of clause 4:
-
At least one year ought to have passed since attempts to get the delinquent employee prosecuted;
-
If, after the passage of such time, no prosecution is initiated, then the department may proceed in accordance with its procedure for disciplinary action;
-
If the prosecution commences later in point of time to the disciplinary proceedings, the latter shall be stayed, but not indefinitely. Such proceedings are to be stayed only for a reasonable period, which is a matter of determination per the circumstances of each case
Considering whether an acquittal in one of the proceedings entails an acquittal in the other, the Court took note of Nelson Motis v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 711, wherein it was observed that the nature and scope of a criminal case are very different from those of a departmental disciplinary proceeding and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceeding.
The Court noted that the FIR was registered in 1996, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 8-12-1999. With its completion in 2002, the delinquent employee was dismissed from service with the passing of the order dated 28-03-2003. The Court reiterated the principle of law enunciated in Neelam Nag (supra), that the completion of trial must be construed as completion “within the reasonable time frame” and that the clause cannot come to the aid of the employee “more so”, for “prolongation on the trial”. In the instant case, the Court said that the completion of the trial concerning the crime registered in the year 1996 is nowhere nearing completion.
The Court said that no specific plea of postponement of disciplinary proceedings awaiting conclusion of a criminal trial was made. Further, it said that the officer neither pleaded nor indicated the prejudice caused to him because of the initiation of criminal proceedings or simultaneous continuation of both proceedings.
Thus, the Court said that it is not the case of the delinquent employee that the trial to which he was subjected to begin within one year of the commission of the offence. It is in the inquiry report dated 03-12-2001 that an objection to the disciplinary proceedings being conducted while a criminal case was being tried is registered, but no date is specified. Further, it is not the case of the delinquent employee that the principles of natural justice were not complied with in the disciplinary proceedings of the bank.
After referring to Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364, wherein it was held that acquittal in the criminal case is not determinative of the commission of misconduct, and it is open to authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, notwithstanding acquittal in the criminal case, the Court disagreed with the impugned order as it is not mandatory to stay the disciplinary proceedings, particularly when they have been initiated after the prescribed period of one year. Further, the restriction within clause 4 is not complete.
[SBI v. P. Zadenga, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1240, decided on 03-10-2023]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Sanjay Karol
Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Sanjay Karol
