^" l^ ^ '<9^...'"'/ "Ss^ ^sy^Y Q..P ^^, C«) <?€- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. ?!P /2010 ~] Appellants/ 1. Respondents 2. ^vSv^ctf&e I^TRJCT C.) f^WA. ^T^O OL:f3 State Bank of India, through Chairman, Central Office, Mumbai. Disciplinary Authority 85 Assistant General Manager, through the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Plant Area Branch, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) Inquiry Authority & Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Ganjpara, Durg (C.G.) Shri Neelam Nag, S/o Sri ShaUen Chandra Nag, aged about 40 years, R/o Quarter No. 9-A, Street No. 32, Sector - 4, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 (11 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 3. Versus Respondent Petitioner l^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W. A. No. 80 of 2010 AppeUants State Bank of India & others Versus Respondent Shri Neelam Nag WRITAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OFTHE CHHATl'ISGARH HIGH COURT fAPPEALTO DIVISON BENCH) ACT.2006 DB: Honl3le Mr. I. M. Quddusi, & Hon'ble Mr. N. K. Agarwal, JJ. Shri Saajay K. Aganval, Advocate for tlie appellants, SIiii R. B. Sharoia, Advocate for the respondent. O RD B R (oa-all ( Passed ou this 28& day ofJune, 2010) Per I. M._Quddusi,J. Heai'd learned counsel appeaiing for the appeUants as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent. This appeal has beeu filed against the impugned order dated 11th March, 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. (S) No, 4692/2009, atlowing the writ petition, dii'ectiag that having regard fo the Memoraiiduni of Settlement, which is applicable to the baak employees, it is desirable that the departinental proceedings should be suspended tiU completion of the trial, The aUegation of criminal inisappropriation is against the respondent who is a baiik eiaployee forwhich criminal proceedings ni Criiainal Case No. 1043/2006 is going on before the Additional ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Durg. A departmental proceeding has also been imtiated against the respondent subniitting a charge sheet on 19th Septeiaber, 2008. The respondent approached by way of fUiag a writ petition ui question, wliich was heard and decided by the Single Judge. Siiice the aUegations regarding the crimiual misappropriation/embezzlement of a particular aaiount ia the depajliaeatal proceedings as weU as the criiaiaal proceediags are the same and raostly the witn^esses aad the dociiments wUl be the saine aiid it is a set pruiciple of law that the accused shoiild not be ^ com.pelled to appear as a witness mid also no cross-exaaiiiiation can be conducted with the acczised, but ia case both the proceedings are atlowed to be conducted at one aad the same tLme, it is possible that the stand taken by the delinquent employee can be misused ia the criiniaal proceedrags which inay affect the fair aad ioipartial trial. 6. In the case of laadian Overseas Baak^ Aiiiiasalai Vs P. Gasaesaii aaid others1 , reUed upon by learned counsel for tlie writ appeUaiit . the Hon'ble Apex Couil ni para 23 and 24 has held as under: "23. The High Court, unfortunately, although it noticed some of the bindiag precedents of the Court failed to apply the law iii its proper perspective. The High Court-was not con'ect io. its view io. concluding that the stay of the departinexital proceediugs should be granted in the pecuUai' facts aiid circuiiistan.ces of the case without analyzing and applying the principle of law evolved ia the aforementioned decisious, It, therefore, misdirected itsetf iii law. What was necessary to be noticed by the High Court was not only existence of identical facts and the evidence in the matter, it WQ.S also requii'ed to take rato consideration the question as to whether fhe charges leveUed against' the delinquent officers, both iii the cnoiiaal case as also ia the discipliaaiy proceedings, were same. Furthei-more it was obUgatory on the. part of the High Coiirt to ardve at a findifig that the non-stay of the discipUnaiy proceedings shaU not oiily prejudice the delinquent officers but the matter also iavolves a complicated ^uestion of law. 24. The staiidard of proof ia a discipUnar^ir proceedings aad that ia a criiniual trial is different. If there are additional charges agaiust the detlnquent officers mcludmg the charges of damaging the property belougitig to the Baak which was not the subject-matter of allegations m a criminal case, ftie depart-mental proceedings should not have been stayed." 7. However, iii ladiasi Overseas (supra) the Hon^le Apex Court has refen'ed various cases, mcluding the case of Capt. (2008) 1 SCC 650 ,^<2^> ^r^. '\. -^: n -^ ^;:II M. Paial Aathosay v. Bharat Gold Miaes Ltd.2 iii which one ofthe consideration was that if the departmental proceediiigs aad tlie criimnal case are based on identical aiid sioiilai' set offacts and the charge in the ciiiainal case against the detinquent einployee is of a grave natnre which iavolves coinplicated questions of law aad fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings tiU the conclusion ofthe crioiiaal case. 8. Though there is no hard and fast rule in this regard and the departiaental proceedings and tiie criiniaal case caa proceed smiultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted smiiiltaaeously, though separately, but io. the instant case we feel that the deHnquent eniployee raay not get aay disadvantage by usiag his defence taken ui the departmental proceediags iii the crmiinal case. 9. Therefore, we dispose of this appeal by upholding the order of the leai'ned Siagle Judge with the followmg directions : (i) The A.C.J.M. Durg is directed to conclude the trial which is pending siace 2006 on day to day basis, in. which we have been niformed that one witness has already been examined. (ii) The writ appellants would be free to proceed further iii the disciplmaiy proceeditigs as soon as the case frora the prosecution side is closed. No order as to costs. Sd/- LM. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K-Agarwal Judge Thalciir 2 (1999) 3 SCC 679