Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Subhash Jina Kamble, was employed as a cashier at Dena Bank's Govandi branch. On 4 January 2013, it was reported that he collected cash from the safe but failed to make entries in the Double Lock Register and obtain officers' signatures. He himself reported a cash shortage of Rs.13,48,100/-. A suspension order was issued on 5 January 2013, and an FIR was lodged on 22 January 2013. The petitioner was arrested on 4 February 2013 under Sections 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. His bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court but granted by the High Court on 16 April 2013. The police filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.629/13 before the 11th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Kurla. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a stay of the departmental inquiry initiated by the bank, pending the criminal trial, also citing his impending retirement on 31 May 2016. The court considered whether departmental proceedings should be stayed pending criminal trial. The court noted that the charges in both proceedings were based on the same set of facts. However, the court held that there is no legal bar to continuing the departmental inquiry pending the criminal case, as the standards of proof and objectives are different. The court observed that the petitioner had not made out a case for stay, and the departmental inquiry could proceed. The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Stay Pending Criminal Trial - Parallel proceedings are permissible as departmental inquiry and criminal case have different standards of proof and objectives - The court held that there is no bar to continue departmental inquiry pending criminal trial, and the petitioner failed to make out a case for stay (Paras 5-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether departmental inquiry should be stayed pending criminal trial when the charges in both proceedings arise from the same set of facts.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Parallel proceedings permissible
- departmental inquiry and criminal trial distinct
- stay of departmental inquiry not automatic
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Section 409 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (04) 45
Writ Petition No.12828 of 2015
Anoop V. Mohta, A.A. Sayed
Ms. A.P. Madhuri for Petitioner; Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sagar Sheth with Ms. Radha Ved i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking stay of departmental inquiry pending criminal trial.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought stay of departmental inquiry initiated by Respondent Bank pending criminal case before Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Kurla and Dadar.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was facing departmental inquiry for alleged cash shortage of Rs.13,48,100/- and a criminal case under Sections 409 and 34 IPC; he sought stay of departmental inquiry pending criminal trial.
Previous Decisions
Suspension order dated 5 January 2013; FIR lodged on 22 January 2013; arrest on 4 February 2013; bail rejected by Sessions Court but granted by High Court on 16 April 2013.
Issues
Whether departmental inquiry should be stayed pending criminal trial when charges arise from same set of facts.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that departmental inquiry should be stayed pending criminal trial as both proceedings arise from same facts.
Respondent argued that there is no bar to continue departmental inquiry pending criminal case, and petitioner failed to make out a case for stay.
Ratio Decidendi
Parallel proceedings of departmental inquiry and criminal trial are permissible as they have different standards of proof and objectives. There is no automatic stay of departmental inquiry pending criminal trial. The court must consider the facts of each case, and the petitioner failed to make out a case for stay.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present Writ Petition on 3 December 2015 thereby praying to stay the departmental inquiry initiated by the Respondent, pending the criminal case...
The Petitioner’s case can be crystallized as per the synopsis as under: The Petitioner was working as a cashier at Govandi branch of the Respondent Bank.
A suspension order dated 5 January 2013 was issued against the Petitioner for the above misconduct.
The Petitioner was arrested by the Govandi Police on 4 February 2013 on the charge of committing an offence under section 409 and section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Petitioner moved for a Bail Application before the Sessions Court, Mumbai, which was rejected by the Court. Thereafter, the bail was granted to the Petitioner by this Court vide order dated 16 April 2013.
The Police also filed FIR in C.C.No.629/13 before the 11th Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Kurla.
The Petitioner is about to retire on 31 May 2016.
The charges in the departmental inquiry and criminal case are based on the same set of facts.
There is no bar to continue the departmental inquiry pending the criminal case.
The Petitioner has not made out a case for stay of the departmental inquiry.
Procedural History
On 4 January 2013, cash shortage reported. Suspension order on 5 January 2013. FIR on 22 January 2013. Arrest on 4 February 2013. Bail rejected by Sessions Court, granted by High Court on 16 April 2013. Charge sheet filed in C.C.No.629/13. Petitioner filed Writ Petition on 3 December 2015 seeking stay of departmental inquiry. Judgment delivered on 5 April 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 409, Section 34
