Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5179 of 2004
PETITIONER:
Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Allahabad
RESPONDENT:
Vidhya Varidh Mishra
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/08/2004
BENCH:
S. N. Variava & A. K. Mathur
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
[Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16141 of 2001]
S. N. VARIAVA, J.
Leave granted.
Heard parties.
This appeal is against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court
dated 20th July 2001.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows.
The Respondent was working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the
Appellant-Bank. In October 1978 he was suspended in connection
with embezzlement of Rs.15,000/-. A disciplinary inquiry was held
against the Respondent. In the disciplinary inquiry, the Respondent
was found to have had a hand in the embezzlement. The Inquiry
Officer proposed punishment of termination of service and recovery of
money.
It appears that the Administrative Committee of the Bank
decided to take a lenient view and proposed to impose a punishment
of withholding two annual increments and recording adverse entries in
the character roll. When this proposal was sent to the Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, the Registrar opined that the charges were serious
and that they had been held proved in the disciplinary inquiry. It was
opined that on these charges termination should take place. The
Registrar did not, therefore, approve the minor punishment proposed
to be imposed on the Respondent. The Bank thus decided to dismiss
the Respondent. By a letter dated 6th April 1989 the services of the
Respondent were terminated.
It must be mentioned that the Respondent was also charge
sheeted and faced a criminal trial. The Trial Court had found the
Respondent guilty and had convicted him. However, subsequent to 6th
April 1989, the Appellate Court exonerated the Respondent on the
ground that he was merely negligent in his duties and that no criminal
offence had been made out.
After the Appellate Court exonerated the Respondent, he made
an application to the Appellant-Bank to reconsider the order of
termination. This application was rejected on 20th December, 1991.
The Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court
challenging the Order dated 20th December, 1991. In this Writ
Petition, there was no challenge to the order of termination dated 6th
April, 1989.
A Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed the Writ
Petition and directed reinstatement. It was held that for this very act
the Respondent had already been awarded punishment of withholding
two annual increments and an adverse entry in the character roll. It
was held that for the same offence that he could not again be
subjected to double punishment.
The Appeal filed by the Appellant has been dismissed by the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Division Bench by the impugned judgment. It was pointed out to the
Division Bench that there was no double punishment as the earlier
proposal had not been approved by the Registrar. The Division Bench
holds that as the Bank had itself thought it fit to impose only a minor
punishment, they could not now terminate the services of the
Respondent.
We have heard counsel for the parties. In our view, the Single
Judge has gone completely wrong. There was no double punishment.
The earlier proposal to impose minor punishment had not been
approved by the Registrar. Therefore, the minor punishment had not
been awarded or imposed. In our view, the Division Bench has clearly
erred. The participation of the Respondent in the embezzlement
having been proved, in a disciplinary inquiry, the proper punishment
was termination of service. More importantly, both the learned Single
Judge as well as the Division Bench completely overlooked the fact
that the termination was by the Order dated 6th April 1989. This Order
had not been challenged in the Writ Petition. There being no challenge
to that Order, reinstatement could not have been directed.
Mr. Rao submitted that the Respondent had been exonerated by
the Criminal Court. He submitted that the termination was only on the
basis of his conviction. He submitted that as his conviction is set
aside, the Courts below were right in reinstating the Respondent. We
are unable to accede to this submission. The termination was
pursuant to a disciplinary inquiry. It is settled law that in a disciplinary
inquiry a conclusion different from that arrived at by a Criminal Court,
may be arrived at. The strict burden of proof required to establish
guilt in a Criminal Court is not required in disciplinary proceeding.
The Respondent had not claimed that the disciplinary proceedings
were not conducted fairly. As the termination was based on findings of
the Disciplinary Committee, the fact that the Appellate Court
exonerated the Respondent was of no consequence.
Mr. Rao next submitted that the matter should be remitted back
to the High Court with an opportunity to the Respondent to amend his
Writ Petition and to show to the Court that the order of termination
was based on the Respondent being convicted by the Criminal Court.
We are unable to accede to this request also. We have gone through
all the documents. It is clear that the order of termination was based
on the findings given in the disciplinary proceedings. On these
findings, it cannot be said that the order of termination was not
correct.
Under these circumstances, the Appeal is allowed. The
impugned Order as well as the Order of the learned Single Judge are
set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the Respondent stands dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.