Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 695 (CAL)

Sanatan Bahadur v. Paschim Banga Gramin Bank

2015-08-19

BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2015
ORDER : Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. Let the affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 21st January, 2015, passed by the appellate authority of Paschim Banga Gramin Bank. By the said order, the appellate authority concurred with the findings of the disciplinary authority dated 29th July, 2011. Penalties imposed by the disciplinary authority were on the basis of two charges, both of which were proved and the petitioner was dismissed from service and further was disqualified from future employment in the bank. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the appellate authority failed to take into consideration the fact that on the same issue for which he was charged, a criminal proceeding was initiated by the Bank, which culminated in his "honourable acquittal" by the learned Judge of the Special Court, 1st Court, Hooghly, in terms of the judgment rendered on 30th June, 2014, in Special Case No. 4 of 2012. In this context, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner refers and relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of S. Bhaskar Reddy & Anr. v. Superintendent of Police & Anr., reported in 2014 (8) Supreme 570 . Relying on the said judgment, he submits that the appellate authority did not take into consideration the important fact that the petitioner was "honourably acquitted" in respect of charges in a criminal case which were similar to the charges levelled against him in disciplinary proceedings. 4. Even if charges against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings as well as in the criminal proceedings were similar in nature, it is to be carefully examined as to whether the petitioner, in fact, was "honourably acquitted" by the Criminal Court or not. 5. Before this Court goes into this aspect of the matter, it may be worthwhile to rely on a judgment of the Supreme Court with regard to the meaning of the expression, "honourable acquittal". The Supreme Court, in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. v. S. Samuthiram, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598 , observed, inter alia, in paragraph 24 of its judgment, as follows: - "24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal" came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal. The Supreme Court, in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. v. S. Samuthiram, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598 , observed, inter alia, in paragraph 24 of its judgment, as follows: - "24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal" came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted." 6. Evident from the above observation made by the Supreme Court is that an accused can be said to be "honourably acquitted", when he is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused. In other words, "honourable acquittal" - a coined judicial expression - connotes only such acquittal which is not shrouded by a flawed prosecution case presented before a Court that inevitably disables a trial Judge from fully considering or appreciating such evidence which is vital for prosecution. 7. Even a bare perusal of the judgment rendered on 30th June, 2014, by the learned Judge of Special Court, 1st Court, Hooghly, in Special Case No. 4 of 2012, reveals that the petitioner was given benefit of doubt, since certain vital original documents, including audit report, could not be produced by the prosecution. In the said judgment, the Court observed, inter alia, that the prosecution had failed to put forward any cogent explanation as to why it did not hand over certain documents to the Investigating Officers at the time of investigation, instead, they kept it in their own custody. In the said judgment, the Court observed, inter alia, that the prosecution had failed to put forward any cogent explanation as to why it did not hand over certain documents to the Investigating Officers at the time of investigation, instead, they kept it in their own custody. The Court also took note of the fact that the concerned Investigating Officer never made any prayer for comparison of handwriting of the accused in a written declaration with that of the signature of the accused, by sending the same to a handwriting expert. The Court also took into consideration that the written declaration which was in the custody of the Bank authority was a vital document, which was not handed over to the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. The Court even went on to observe that the acts and actions taken by the Manager of Basudevpur Branch were "under the cobweb of a mystery." 8. On the basis of the observations made by the Court, as reproduced hereinabove, it cannot be held that in the facts of the instant case the petitioner was "honourably acquitted". Rather, the acquittal was solely due to shoddy evidence led by prosecution, which left the Court with no option but to acquit the petitioner. 9. In such a fact situation, it cannot be held that the impugned order passed by the statutory appellate authority warrants any interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. Petition dismissed.