Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an employee of State Bank of India, filed a writ petition seeking stay of departmental proceedings initiated against him pending the criminal case (Criminal Case No.38 of 2011) before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Central), CBI, Lucknow. The petitioner was employed as Deputy General Manager and had previously headed the Kanpur Main Branch. In July 2009, a fraud involving kite flying operations in clearing was detected, causing an alleged loss of Rs.44.15 crores. The bank initiated departmental proceedings and placed the petitioner under suspension on 5 August 2009. An FIR was lodged on 20 August 2009, and the CBI submitted a charge sheet on 25 March 2011 containing six charges against the petitioner. The petitioner's suspension was revoked on 31 August 2011. The departmental inquiry proceeded, and the inquiry officer submitted a report on 10 July 2013, forwarded to the petitioner on 3 August 2013. The petitioner submitted his defence on 12 September 2013. The petitioner sought stay of the departmental proceedings until the conclusion of the criminal trial, relying on judgments such as Capt. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Kuheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd., Yoginath Bagade v. State of Maharashtra, Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Girish V., and Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Bihari Misra. The respondent bank opposed the stay, arguing that the departmental inquiry had reached an advanced stage and that there was no absolute bar on continuing proceedings. The court, after considering the submissions and precedents, held that there is no absolute bar on conducting departmental proceedings during the pendency of a criminal case. The disciplinary authority has discretion to proceed, especially when charges are grave and the evidence is distinct. The court noted that the departmental inquiry was at a final stage and the criminal case was pending, and found no substantial prejudice to the petitioner. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Stay of Proceedings Pending Criminal Trial - No Absolute Bar - The court considered whether departmental proceedings must be stayed pending criminal trial. Held that there is no absolute bar and the disciplinary authority has discretion to proceed, especially when charges are grave and evidence is distinct. (Paras 7-10) B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Parallel Proceedings - Grave Charges - The court noted that the charges of kite flying operations resulting in loss of Rs.44.15 crores are grave, and the departmental inquiry had already reached an advanced stage. Held that the disciplinary authority can continue proceedings. (Paras 7-10) C) Service Law - Prejudice - Stay of Departmental Inquiry - The petitioner argued prejudice if departmental proceedings continue. The court found no substantial prejudice as the inquiry was at final stage and the criminal case was pending. Held that no stay is warranted. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether departmental proceedings should be stayed pending the criminal trial in a case involving alleged bank fraud of Rs.44.15 crores.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Stay of departmental proceedings pending criminal trial
- Discretion of disciplinary authority
- No absolute bar
- Grave charges
- Distinct evidence
