Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 159 (AP)

B. Yellaiah v. State Bank of India

2024-01-31

HARINATH NUNEPALLY

body2024
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings dtd. 27/2/2004 issued by the 3rd respondent and by order dtd. 26/10/2009 issued by the 2nd respondent, confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner claims that the petitioner has been acquitted in CC.No.33 of 2003 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pakala, Chittoor District and as such the petitioner claims that he is entitled for reinstatement with consequential benefits. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Messenger on 6/11/1986 and promoted as a Clerk in the year 1992. Vide Order dtd. 6/10/2001 the petitioner was placed under suspension and a criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner on 21/2/2002. The allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner had collected cash from the customers for being credited into their Life Insurance Corporation Account and that the said amount was not credited to their accounts. The petitioner was arrested in the said case and the respondent/bank also issued a charge sheet initiating disciplinary proceedings. After due enquiry the petitioner was imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. 4. The petitioner filed WP.No.17753 of 2003 challenging the issuance of show cause notice, the same was dismissed on 11/2/2004. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case after a full-fledged trial and that the acquittal is honorary and not an acquittal on technical grounds or benefit of doubt. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the issuance of the order of dismissal from service was challenged in WP.No.6770 of 2004 which was filed prior to the disposal of the criminal case. This Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of dismissal before the Competent Respondent Authorities. The 2nd respondent had rejected the appeal vide order dtd. 26/10/2009. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/bank submits that the petitioner is accused of severe charges of misappropriation of amounts and for the bank any act of mis-appropriation of customers money would expose the banks reputation and the integrity of the staff. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/bank also submits that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and conducted against the petitioner are distinct and different from the criminal proceedings. The evidences adduced before the criminal court and the disciplinary authority are not the same. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/bank also submits that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and conducted against the petitioner are distinct and different from the criminal proceedings. The evidences adduced before the criminal court and the disciplinary authority are not the same. It is submitted that the disciplinary proceedings are independent and placed reliance of the following judgments. State Bank of India and others Vs. P.Zadenga, 2023 Live Law (SC) 850, Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (D) Thr.LRs Vs. Union of India and others, Civil Appeal.No.7005 of 2012. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others Vs. V.Zadenga has held that the disciplinary proceedings are wholly separate and distinct and acquittal in criminal proceedings does not entitle the delinquent employee for any benefit in the latter or automatic discharge in departmental proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (D) Thr.LRs Vs. Union of India and others has taken a similar view that the departmental proceedings are distinct and mere discharge on acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle the petitioner for any service benefits. The petitioner is relying on the Judgment of Capt.M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another. However, the principle laid down in Paul Anthony case would not be applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. As such the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court. 9. The petitioner has been removed from service on 27/2/2004 and the writ petition was filed in the month of January, 2013 by then the age of the petitioner was 56 years. The petitioner has also crossed the age of superannuation long back. There is no adequate explanation as to why the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court after lapse of nine years. If the sole ground for filing the writ petition is the acquittal in the criminal proceedings, this court is not inclined to entertain such an approach. The petitioners case also does not warrant application of the principle laid down in Judgment of Capt.M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another. 10. There is absolutely no difficulty in holding that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against a delinquent employee and the criminal proceedings initiated against the said employee are distinct and different. The petitioners case also does not warrant application of the principle laid down in Judgment of Capt.M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another. 10. There is absolutely no difficulty in holding that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against a delinquent employee and the criminal proceedings initiated against the said employee are distinct and different. The disciplinary proceedings are conducted with a wider sweep and scope, whereby adequate opportunity would be extended to the delinquent employee to substantiate his stand and to negate the allegations against him. The standard of proof and the degree of admission of documents is distinct and different when compared to a judicial proceedings before a Court. The petitioner has not made out any case for grant of any relief. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, without costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.