Dismissed

Lokesh Kumar Son of Shri Jagratan v. the Chairman

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2021CW/273/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an Opciton Petition filed by an employee seeking to quash his dismissal and rejection of his appeal. The court held that departmental proceedings and criminal cases can proceed simultaneously and allowed the impugned orders to stand.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned orders of dismissal and rejection of appeal upheld; pending applications disposed of.

Lokesh Kumar Son of Shri Jagratan Vs the Chairman — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 273/2021

¶3

Lokesh Kumar Son Of Shri Jagratan, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Care Of Shri O.p Raigar 79, Krishna Vihar, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur, An Employee Dismissed While Posted As Officiating Head Cashier At Pipli Chowk, Branch Of State Bank Of India, At Nokha, District Hanumangarh Rajasthan

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Chairman, State Bank Of India, Corporate Center, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai

¶7

The Assistant General Manager Cum Disciplinary Authority, State Bank Of India, Regional Business Office 2, Administrative Office 3, Public Park, Bikaner, Rajasthan

¶8

The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Pipli Chowk Branch At Nokha, District Hanumangarh Rajasthan

¶9

Mrs. Vanita Tak Dy. Manager (Cash), Joint Custodian Pipli Chowk, Branch Of State Bank Of India At Nokha, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan

¶10

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Asthana For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment

¶12

19/01/2021

¶13

The petitioner assails the order dated 29.11.2019 whereby the petitioner has been punished with dismissal from service without notice and the appellate order dated 27.04.2020 whereby his appeal was rejected.

¶14

The allegation against the petitioner is of embezzlement and fraud resulting in causing loss to the Bank of a sum of Rs.1,33,68,900/-.

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CW-273/2021]

¶17

This court finds that the petitioner did not participate in the inquiry and the only reason coming forward is that because there was a criminal case registered in relation to certain allegations for which a departmental inquiry was conducted, the petitioner chose not to appear before the inquiry officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report and copy of the inquiry report was also made available to the petitioner as is reflected from the impugned order. The petitioner submitted a reply to the inquiry report and requested for putting on hold the departmental proceedings as criminal case was still pending. The Bank did not accede to the request of the petitioner as the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings can be continued simultaneously, whereafter the Bank having accepted the inquiry report reached to a conclusion that there has been a misappropriation of funds and fraud committed by the petitioner, entries have been made without physical vouchers, and that all the four charges were proved. The disciplinary authority decided to dismiss the petitioner from service and the appellate authority has also approved the said order.

¶18

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that because there was a criminal case registered, the departmental proceedings ought not to have continued, is found to be without basis. The Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Versus Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 , held as under: -

¶19

(3 of 4)

¶20

[CW-273/2021]

¶21

22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are:-

¶22

(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet.

¶23

(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.”

¶24

Learned counsel has also stated that the petitioner has not received subsistence allowance. However, this court finds that at no given point of time, the petitioner raised this objection of nonpayment of subsistence allowance and it is only before the

¶25

(4 of 4) [CW-273/2021]

¶26

appellate authority that the petitioner raised the said issue.

¶27

However, that could not affect the findings of the inquiry officer and the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority relating to the charges being proved and the petitioner not participating in the inquiry voluntarily.

¶28

In view thereof, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not warrant any interference from this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶29

All pending applications also stands disposed of.

¶30

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶31

SAURABH YADAV 670 /81

Lokesh Kumar Son of Shri Jagratan v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh Kumar Son of Shri Jagratan v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamruddin Kathat S/O Shri Samma Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Kumar Yadav @ Fakru S/O Sh. Dayaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Shanu@Asgar Ali S/O Mohammad Rashid Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/O Sh. Rambharos Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Aditi Dadhich D/O Shri Ashok Kumar Joshi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ganga Singh S/O Shri Ram Singh Shekhawat Vs the State of Rajasthan