Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 489 (UTT)

Dev Kumar Jain v. PNB

2013-07-25

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2013
Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner was an Officer Incharge of Punjab National Bank’s Extension Counter i.e. Mussoorie Dehradun Electricity Supply Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as “MDESU”) under Branch Office Karanpur, Dehradun between the years 1994 to 1996. The said Extension Counter used to receive cheques in the account of MDESU. However, the cheques collectively amounting to Rs. 19,76,504.50/- which were liable to be credited to the account of Electricity Urban Distribution Division (South) [herein after referred to as ‘EUDD(S)’] were not credited in the said account. Thereafter the Bank did an in house inquiry and found that all these cheques were deposited in the Bank of which the petitioner was the Branch Manager but the same have not been credited to the account of EUDD(S) at MDESU during 1995-1996. Consequently, a complaint was filed before the CBI, Dehradun and a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner. CBI filed its chargesheet in the matter on 28.1.2002 under Sections 120B, 420, 471, 477-A and 201 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner. At the same time, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner in which he was given a chargesheet on 4.3.2003. However, in view of the FIR lodged against the petitioner under Sections 120B, 420, 471, 477-A and 201 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 petitioner was arrested by the CBI as far back in the year 2002 and the petitioner remained under judicial custody till 2005. Ultimately trial commenced against the petitioner in which he was acquitted of all the charges. Promptly thereafter the petitioner went to the Bank and sought joining which was given to him, but at the same time the departmental proceedings recommenced. Departmental proceedings were initially stalled, as the petitioner was under judicial custody. 2. Broadly the charge against the petitioner is that an amount of Rs. 19,76,504.50/- which was to be credited through various cheques in the account of EUDD(S) was not credited and in the inquiry it was found that they have been credited in fictitious accounts of Hari Ram, Vijay Pal, Uma Devi and Prem Singh. In the inquiry, it was found that such persons could not be traced on the address as mentioned in their accounts in the Bank and therefore they were found to be fictitious. In the inquiry, it was found that such persons could not be traced on the address as mentioned in their accounts in the Bank and therefore they were found to be fictitious. The entire responsibility of all this was fixed on the petitioner as the extension counter was under his sole charge. 3. The Inquiry Officer gave a finding against the petitioner in most of the charges. Though it is true that some of the charges were only partially proved. On the basis of the inquiry report the petitioner was removed from the services of the Bank. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved a statutory appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed by a speaking order on 30.8.2007. Thereafter his revision of appeal has also been dismissed on 31.12.2007. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. The main thrust of the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that both the criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedings were initiated against him on the same set of charges. Now since he has been acquitted by the criminal court in the criminal trial and the charges in the departmental proceeding were exactly the same, the departmental proceeding should not have been proceeded against him and in any case entire proceeding stand vitiated. 6. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court such as in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 and Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 . The main difference between the case of Captain M. Paul Anthony (Supra) and the present case is that in the said case before the Hon’ble Apex Court the department proceeded against a person ex-parte which is not a case before this Court. The other case law cited by the petitioner (i.e. Roop Singh Negi) is also not applicable on the facts of the present case. The other case law cited by the petitioner (i.e. Roop Singh Negi) is also not applicable on the facts of the present case. It is true that in Roop Singh Negi’s case both criminal proceeding as well as departmental proceeding were initiated against Roop Singh Negi and in the departmental proceeding, appellant (Roop Singh Negi) made a confession, which was considered by the department but the fact that there was a discharge order in his favour by the criminal court was not considered and this was the anomaly pointed out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case. The relevant portion of Roop Singh Negi’s case on which reliance has been placed reads as under:- “23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the Criminal Court on the basis of self-same evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the Enquiry Officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the Enquiry Officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.” 7. As we have already stated above, the facts of Roop Singh Negi’s case will not be applicable on the facts of the present case. 8. Moreover, merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in a criminal trial it would not mean that departmental proceedings could not have been initiated against him. A criminal trial and a departmental proceeding proceed at different levels, and the appreciation of evidence in the two is entirely different. 8. Moreover, merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in a criminal trial it would not mean that departmental proceedings could not have been initiated against him. A criminal trial and a departmental proceeding proceed at different levels, and the appreciation of evidence in the two is entirely different. In a criminal court, prosecution has to establish its charges beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in a departmental proceeding the charges can be proved on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities. 9. In the present case, what cannot be questioned is the fact that the petitioner was the Manager of the said branch of the extension counter of PNB what also the fact that various cheques totaling Rs. 19,76,504.50/- were deposited by the EUDD(S) in its account at Extension Counter, MDESU, Branch Office-Karanpur, Dehradun. It is again the fact that these cheques were never credited in the account of EUDD(S) at Extension Counter, MDESU, Branch Office-Karanpur, Dehradun. The evidence suggest, as it is clear from the inquiry report, that most of the charges the department has been able to prove that the various cheques amounting to Rs. 19,76,504.50/- which were deposited by the EUDD(S) were not credited in the account of EUDD(S) at Extension Counter, MDESU, Branch Office-Karanpur, Dehradun but credited to other individual accounts, which were found to be fictitious. Further, from these fictitious accounts money was also withdrawn. Ultimately, the bank had to credit the amount of Rs.19,76,504.50 from its own funds to the account of EUDD(S) and therefore suffered a loss of the said amount. 10. Finally, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner was working in a bank and the entire working and culture of a bank depends upon one factor i.e. trust. The bank has lost its trust in the present petitioner and that for this reason, no interference is liable to be made in the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs.