Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1214 (PAT)

Gyanendra Kumar Dubey v. Punjab National Bank

2003-11-25

R.S.GARG

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner on the allegations of misconduct is facing a criminal trial and has also been subjected to the departmental proceedings. According to the petitioner the departmental proceedings are required to be stayed in view of paragraph 11 of the Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. For these submissions he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court ported in 1988 SC 2118 and another single Bench judgment of this Court 2003(3) PLJR 347 . It was also submitted by him that the petitioner is a Branch Manager and the enquiry has been assigned to some subordinate to the petitioner. According to him he has raised the question of propriety of appointing the enquiry officer, who is junior to the petitioner, but unfortunately the establishment is not passing any orders. He has further submitted that as complicated questions of fact and law are involved in the matter and the matter will have to be decided by the Court of competent criminal jurisdiction the enquiry must be stayed till final outcome of the criminal trial. 3. Learned counsel for the establishment has submitted that such is not Regulation 11 and in fact Regulation 11, if is read in its true perspective, would lead to another conclusion. He had also submitted that though the petitioner has made an allegation that an officer junior to him had been appointed as enquiry officer but in fact no such allegations have been raised nor any such statement has been made before this Court. Regulation 11 reads as under:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 6 or Regulation 7 or Regulation 8, the disciplinary authority may impose any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 if the officer/employee has been convicted on a criminal charge, or on the strength of facts or conclusion arrived at by a judicial trial". 4. Regulation 6 relates to the procedure imposing major penalties, Regulation 7 relate to action on the enquiry report and Regulation 8 relates to procedure imposing minor penalties. A juxtapose reading of Regulation 6, 7 and 8 would simply mean that in a given case after following the provisions minor and major penalties in accordance with the procedure may be awarded. Regulation 11 is all exception carved out of the general rule. A juxtapose reading of Regulation 6, 7 and 8 would simply mean that in a given case after following the provisions minor and major penalties in accordance with the procedure may be awarded. Regulation 11 is all exception carved out of the general rule. While under Regulation 6, 7 land 8 major and minor penalties are to be inflicted after observing the procedure, Regulation 11 authorises the employer/establishment to remove the man from service or awarding a punishment in case he is convicted by a Court of competent criminal jurisdiction. Regulation 11 in fact is not an absolute exception to Regulation 6, 7 and 8 but it gives additional power to the establishment and the authority. It does nowhere says that in case of complicated fact and legal issues involved in the matter the disciplinary authority should stay his hands till the outcome of the criminal trial or wait ad-infinitum. 5. True it is that in the matter of Santan Singh vs. State of Bihar 2003 (3) PLJR 347 a learned single Judge of this Court has observed that ordinarily during pendency of the criminal trial the proceedings may be stayed but that does not mean that in every case the proceedings have to be stayed. In the matter of Kusheshwar Dubey vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, AIR 1988 SC 2118 the Supreme Court had observed that though there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings taken against a delinquent employee against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated, yet, there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer the disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. In the matter of Kusheshwar Dubey, the Supreme Court simply observed that under the particular facts the disciplinary authority may stay the proceedings. It does nowhere say that it is the right and authority of the delinquent to seek deference of the disciplinary proceedings till final decision of the criminal trial. 6. In any case it would be within the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority to proceed further with the matter or stay its hands. The questions will have to be raised at appropriate stage and can not be argued in abstract. Whether the present matter raises complicated questions of facts and ticklish questions of law has yet not been examined by anybody anywhere. Without raising all these questions the petitioner has rushed to this Court. The questions will have to be raised at appropriate stage and can not be argued in abstract. Whether the present matter raises complicated questions of facts and ticklish questions of law has yet not been examined by anybody anywhere. Without raising all these questions the petitioner has rushed to this Court. Even otherwise it would be the discretion of the disciplinary authority to await the outcome of the criminal trial, a delinquent can not say to the authorities that the proceedings be stayed. 7. It is trite law that in criminal trials the proof beyond shadow of doubt or to the reasonable certainty is needed while in cases of civil nature/disciplinary matters the judgments/findings can be arrived at on preponderance of probability. Even in a given case where the delinquent is acquitted by the criminal Court for one reason or the other, the Department would still be entitled to proceed with the departmental enquiry. The acquittal of the delinquent is no guarantee that he can not be held liable in the disciplinary proceedings. 8. On the first question I am unable to concede to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as appointment of enquiry officer is concerned the petitioner has made a submission in paragraph 11 of the writ application that a subordinate officer to the petitioner has been appointed as the enquiry officer, he has not said anywhere that the officer appointed as the enquiry officer is junior to the petitioner in horizontal line or in the vertical line. This question can well be raised by him in detail before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, I am sure, if is satisfied that the enquiry officer is junior or subordinate to the petitioner would change him. 9. The petition is dismissed, but, however, with the liberty aforesaid.