Full Judgment
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition No.17400/2009 dated 25/07/2013.)
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, Chief Justice
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated July 25, 2013, passed by the Hon ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17400 of 2009.
2. The writ petitioner appellant was posted as the Manager of Benson Town Branch of the Indian Bank between June 25, 1990 to April 9, 1991. During his tenure, he committed serious irregularities in the accounts of Nayan Steels Private Limited and Rajgir Steels Private Limited. He, also, issued third party cheques to the tune of Rs.2,16,00,000/- (Rupees two crore sixteen lakh) only, for the credit of the said two companies. From 1990 onwards, those cheque purchases were far in excess of his powers. Thus, he violated the norms of lending in total disregard to his responsibilities and interest of the Bank. Moreover, his reckless attitude caused loss to the Bank inasmuch as the amount outstanding under BP Returned Unpaid was not recovered to the tune of Rs.50,40,000/- (Rupees fifty lakh forty thousand) only, and the so-called Directors of the said two companies could not be traced to recover the dues.
3. The writ petitioner was charge sheeted and the date of enquiry was fixed. He reported sick and did not attend the enquiry. Enough and sufficient opportunity was provided to him for attending the enquiry. Nevertheless, he failed to attend the same.
4. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of having committed irregularities. Consequently, the management of the Bank proposed to impose a major penalty of compulsory retirement against the writ petitioner.
5. The appeal and the review were dismissed. Aggrieved by those orders, the writ petitioner approached this Court in the writ jurisdiction.
6. The Hon ble Single Judge found that there was clarity in the chargesheet. It was held that the implications have been proved and the Enquiry Officer granted sufficient time to the writ petitioner. But, despite notice issued to him, the writ petitioner failed to appear in the enquiry. The Hon ble Single Judge, also, held that the enquiry report was not irregular and not in contravention of the regulations of the Bank.
7. Mr.Jagadeeshachari, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, argues that a proper enquiry was not held as sufficient opportunity was not granted to the delinquent officer.
8. The delinquent officer reported sick. The Enquiry Officer granted him time. Thereafter, notice went to him, but he chose to remain ex-parte. The charges were not fake. The charges were proved by the Bank. Consequently, an order of major punishment was imposed on him.
9. Mr.Jagadeeshachari submits that simultaneously a criminal proceeding was initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He, further, submits that although the learned CBI Judge found him guilty of the charges, but in the criminal appeal, this Hon ble Court acquitted him.
10. It is too late to argue that as in the Criminal Court, the delinquent officer was acquitted, he shall be exempted from the disciplinary proceedings also. Since criminal and disciplinary proceedings operate in different fields, there is no bar against proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings even if a person is acquitted in the criminal case. The Supreme Court of India in Suresh Pathrella versus- Oriental Bank of Commerce reported in (2006)10 SCC 572 held that acquittal in a criminal case would be of no bar for drawing up a disciplinary proceedings. The yardstick and standard of proof in a criminal case has been different from the disciplinary proceedings. While the standard of proof in a criminal case has been a proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental proceedings has been preponderance of probabilities.
11. We, thus, do not find any merit in this appeal.
12. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
13. We make no order as to costs.