L.P.A. No.573 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.573 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 25,2011 Central Bank of India and others .............................. Appellant Versus Rattan Lal Arora ....................................................... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.Kumar Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against judgment dated 25.1.2011 passed by learned Single Judge holding that the delinquent employee- respondent could not be subjected to an inquiry into charges pertaining to the year 1978 by issuing a charge-sheet in the year 1990. The excuse of the appellant-Bank that parallel criminal proceedings were going on has not been accepted by the learned Single Judge by holding that the trial Court has acquitted the delinquent employee on 15.7.1983 and there was virtually no explanation for the delay from 1983 to 1990. 2. We feel that the excuse of pendency of criminal proceedings even otherwise has no legal backing because it is now well settled that pendency of criminal proceedings is no bar to the initiation of departmental inquiry unless it is proved that the charges are absolutely identical and the L.P.A. No.573 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] evidence is the same. If the departmental inquiry was in respect of the same charges and it was said to be proved by the same evidence then, in any case, the appellant could not have initiated any inquiry. The inordinate delay in holding inquiry by the appellant-Bank has remained unexplained. Moreover, another co-accused Ashok Kumar who faced the criminal proceedings with the delinquent employee was also said to be subjected to departmental inquiry and he approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 8983 of 1991 (Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Central Bank of India). The aforesaid petition was allowed on 12.10.2007 and even L.P.A. . No. 246 of 2007 has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 20.12.2007. The Letters Patent Bench has considered the submission made on the basis of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in P.D. Aggarwal v. State Bank of India, 2006 (8) SCC 766 as also the earlier judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of M.P. v. Bani Singh, 1990 Supp. SCC 738. The view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570 has also been relied upon by the Letters Patent Bench to conclude that in case there is unexplained delay then the inquiry proceedings cannot be permitted. 3. In view of the above, no interference in the view taken by the learned Single Judge is called for. The appeal does not merit admission. 4. Dismissed. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE 25.3.2011 rupi