The Writ Appeal filed by a bank employee challenging the initiation of departmental proceedings for misappropriation and negligence was dismissed. The High Court refused to interfere, noting the departmental charges were for misconduct distinct from the specific criminal offences alleged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT APPEAL No.1221 of 2016
JUDGMENT: (per VRS, J)
Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition challenging
the initiation of departmental proceedings, a bank employee has come up with the above Writ Appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The charges framed against the appellant in the
departmental proceedings read as follows:
“ Charges:
The Bank charges you as under for the gross misconduct in terms of memorandum of settlement on disciplinary action and procedure therefore for workmen signed between IBA and Workmen Unions on 10.04.2002.
(a) Willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of the bank or any of its customers, which is a gross misconduct as per para 5(d) of the settlement dated 10.04.2002.
(b) Gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss, which is a gross misconduct as per para 5(j) of the settlement dated 10.04.2002.
(c) You have misappropriated and misused the Bank’s funds for Rs.37,52,800/- which amounts to doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, which is a gross misconduct as per para 5(j) of the settlement dated 10.04.2002.”
2
As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, the
charge sheet filed before the Criminal Court is for the alleged offences under Sections 380 and 409 IPC on the allegation that the appellant, who is a bank employee, stealthily removed money from the cash bundles and misappropriated a sum of Rs.37,52,800/-. The further allegation in the criminal case is that in order to cover up the misappropriation, he made false entries in the cash book.
Therefore, it is clear that though the foundation for the departmental proceedings was the very same set of facts, the allegations in the departmental proceedings border on misconduct and not exactly on the offences relating to Sections 380, 409 and 477A IPC. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Judge.
Hence, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J
21st NOVEMBER, 2016.
______________________ G. SHYAM PRASAD, J
kvni
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the learned Judge's order dismissing a writ petition challenging the initiation of departmental proceedings against a bank employee.
Bank Employee
Unknown Institution/Bank
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
G. SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
