IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3290 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 29, 2009 Bhim Lal .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State Bank of India & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) The prayer made in this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking directions to the respondents to stay the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of charge-sheet dated 20.1.2007 (Annexure P-3). From the documents accompanying the petition, it becomes evident that FIR bearing No.391 for commission of offences under Sections 406, 409 IPC was registered on 21.7.2006. The FIR has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. Subsequently, charges were framed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist CWP No.3290 of 2008 [2] Class, against the petitioner and another person on 11.7.2007 as is evident from Annexure P-2. Because the petitioner had committed acts of misconduct, on 20.1.2007, the department issued a charge-sheet detailing three charges. The charge-sheet has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. It seems that services of the petitioner were suspended vide Order dated 27.1.2007 (Annexure P-4). The short issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Bank had issued circular No.99 of 2002-2003 in supersession of earlier awards. In view of bipartite settlement, Para 4, departmental proceedings cannot continue and co-exist with criminal prosecution. Hence the prayer in the petition. Learned counsel for the respondent- Bank has pointed out that the provisions in bipartite settlement shall not have any application to the facts and circumstances of the case, in so much as it would apply only when the department charges the delinquent and in regard to the same incident, FIR is lodged. It has been pointed out that in the present case, FIR has been registered against the Society and not only against the petitioner and it relates only to one of the charges framed against the petitioner by the department. I have considered the issue and have gone through the documents placed before me. Para 4 of the bipartite settlement of CWP No.3290 of 2008 [3] which reliance has been placed reads as under:- “If after steps have been taken to prosecute an employee or to get him prosecuted for an offence, he is not put on trial within a year of the commission of the offence, the management may then deal with him as if he had committed an act of “gross misconduct” or of “minor misconduct”, as defined below; provided that if the authority which was to start prosecution proceedings refuse to do so or comes to the conclusion that there is no case for prosecution it shall be open to the management to proceed against the employee under the provisions set out below in clause 11 and 12 infra relating to discharge, but he shall be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension, if any, and shall be entitled to the full wages and allowances and to all other privileges for such period. In the event of the management deciding, after enquiry, not to continue him in service, he shall be liable only for termination with three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of notice as provided in clause 3 above. If within the pendency of the proceedings thus instituted he is put on trial such proceedings shall be stayed pending the completion of the trial, after which the provisions mentioned in clause 3 above shall apply.” A glance at the charge-sheet (Annexure P-3) indicates that charges narrated at Serial Nos.1 and 2 only relate to conduct of the petitioner in the department. Charge No.3, however, relates to embezzlement of funds of the Society which inheres acts which would invite criminal prosecution. Perusal of the FIR indicates that there is an allegation regarding non-payment of mature/ pre-mature fixed deposit receipt by the Society of which the petitioner is a member. The FIR deals only with the issue of embezzlement or misappropriation of the amount. Considering the two documents i.e. Annexure P-1 and P-3, I am of the considered opinion that the scope of departmental enquiry under charge- sheet, Annexure P-3, is much wider. The scope of CWP No.3290 of 2008 [4] criminal investigation under Annexure P-1 (FIR) is only in relation to one of the charges viz. Charge No.3. Rather, charges detailed at Serial Nos.1 and 2 in the chargesheet cannot be gone into and investigated under the Code of Criminal Procedure as the charges relate only to misconduct of the petitioner in the affairs of the Society vis-a-vis the Bank. In view of this factual position, the terms and conditions of bipartite settlement would not come into play. Learned counsel for the respondents has, for the right reasons, referred to judgment dated 18.10.2007 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.16315 of 2007 (Rattan Pal vs. Punjab Gramin Bank & Another). For the purposes of adjudicating on the issue brought up before me, Para 7 and 8 of the said judgment need to be extracted which read as under:- “7. In State Bank of India Vs. R.B. Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 4144: [2004(5) SLR 429 (SC), legal position was reviewed and it was held that proceedings in criminal cases and departmental proceedings could go on simultaneously as purpose of both the proceedings was different. There was no straight-jacket formula as to in which case departmental proceedings should be stayed pending criminal trial. Criminal trial may get prolonged and in such a circumstance, departmental proceedings cannot be stayed. 8. Thus, it is not always necessary that departmental proceedings should stayed pending criminal trial in every case on the ground that criminal trial was pending and the employee could not be required to disclose his defence. Whether or not the petitioner will be prejudiced by conduct of enquiry pending criminal trial, is a matter to be appreciated during enquiry or thereafter. The standard of proof required being different in both proceedings and there being no bar to departmental proceedings being continued, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition at this stage.” CWP No.3290 of 2008 [5] Considering the legal aspect as settled by the Division Bench of this Court and the factual matrix as discussed above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot take refuge under Para 4 of the bipartite settlement and seek stay of departmental proceedings. The departmental proceedings have been initiated while taking into account more and different charges as compared to the allegations made in the FIR. Be that as it may, in the case in hand, no material has been placed on record before this Court to indicate that the incident or set of witnesses are common in the FIR case and departmental proceedings and therefore also, it would be wholly inappropriate to stay the departmental proceedings. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 29, 2009 JUDGE avin