CWP No.18582 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.18582 of 2008 Date of decision: 30.10.2008 Satish Kumar Dhanda ...Petitioner Versus Syndicate Bank and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner in this case has prayed for quashing of order dated 6.9.1996, Annexure P-4 whereby he was dismissed from service. The petitioner has also impugned Annexure P-9 whereby his appeal against the impugned order, Annexure P-4 was rejected on 23.4.1996. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he was appointed as Attender in the Syndicate Bank on 23.11.1983. He was confirmed on the said post w.e.f. 25.5.1984. On 5.8.1986, the petitioner was posted in Syndicate Bank Jalandhar. In the year 1992, a fraud was committed by one Ashok Kumar Bhalla in the bank. Consequently, an FIR was registered at Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar in which the petitioner was also named. He was arrested in the said case and placed under suspension vide order dated 8.10.1992. A charge-sheet dated 25.2.1994, Annexure P-2 was also served upon the petitioner. An inquiry ensued and the inquiry report, Annexure P-3, was submitted on 12.6.1995. The Enquiry Officer held that all the charges against Shri Dhanda (the petitioner) were proved conclusively. Relying upon the CWP No.18582 of 2008 2 inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in which punishment of dismissal from service was proposed. Ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 6.9.1995, Annexure P-4. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the appellate authority on 23.4.1996, Annexure P-9. In the FIR which was registered against the petitioner, the trial continued. On 19.12.2007, however, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar acquitted the petitioner of the charges framed against him under Sections 465, 467 & 468 IPC. The petitioner thus served a legal notice, Annexure P-12 on the respondents seeking his reinstatement in service having been acquitted of the criminal charges by the competent Court. This prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the bank on 9.9.2008. The operative part of the order reads thus: “On a perusal of the records, we observe that the captioned ex-employee was dismissed from the services of the Bank vide proceedings No.ZOD/IRC/PRS-31:CS:435:95 dated 6.9.1995 of the Disciplinary authority for the proven misconduct of removing/pilfering/destroying SB Account folios; making fictitious entries and fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.1,10,500.00 from various SB account which he not only confessed but also reimbursed the amount. In this connection, please be informed that since the employee was dismissed having being found guilty in the Departmental Enquiry, during the year 1995 and his acquittal now by the Criminal Court will not by itself set aside the dismissal imposed by the Bank. Further, the charge were proved in the Departmental enquiry which is independent of criminal trial. Therefore, CWP No.18582 of 2008 3 the contention that he should be reinstated in view of his acquittal has no legal force. Unless otherwise he was dismissed from the services of the Bank basing on any conviction by the court, there is no reason for the Bank to reinstate him into the service. Thus his acquittal in the criminal trial has no effect on his dismissal from the service of the Bank imposed after conducting the Departmental Enquiry. Yours faithfully, (N.S. Shastri) Deputy Gen. Manager” We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the record annexed with the petition. It is clear from a perusal of the record that the petitioner was not dismissed from service merely due to registration of FIR No.137 dated 5.10.1992, under Sections 409, 465, 467 & 468 IPC. A separate departmental inquiry was duly instituted and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed inquiry in which the witnesses were examined and record was perused. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner had been conclusively proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner as punishment of dismissal from service was proposed to be awarded to him. The petitioner was ultimately dismissed from service on 6.9.1995. His appeal was rejected on 23.4.1996. Nothing has come on record to show that the petitioner ever challenged the impugned orders, Annexures P-4 and P-9. He never pointed out any defect with the disciplinary CWP No.18582 of 2008 4 proceedings. He has approached this Court only now after acquittal by the criminal court on 19.12.2007. In our considered view his acquittal by the court per se would not confer any right on him to be reinstated in service. It is clear that the petitioner was dismissed from service after a duly conducted inquiry and disciplinary proceedings. This is not a case where an employee can claim to be reinstated on the ground that he has been acquitted by the criminal court. Such an argument would be available only if the dismissal is based solely on conviction in a criminal case and the employee is acquitted later in appeal. In the present case, however, the disciplinary authority arrived at an independent conclusion that the employee was guilty of serious misconduct and thus dismissed him from service. The petitioner never chose to challenge the said order of dismissal which was passed way back in 1995. We, thus, find no ground to interfere in the impugned orders. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE October 30, 2008 'rajpal'