-1- Civil Writ Petition No.16432 of 2006. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 31,2008. Jaswant Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Deputy General Manager Personnel, Punjab and Sind Bank and another ... Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. In this petition filed under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of -2- Civil Writ Petition No.16432 of 2006. a writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby quashing the order dated April 07, 2000 (Annexure P-1), whereby he was compulsorily retired from the service of the Punjab and Sind Bank (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent-Bank') on the charge of committing forgery and causing loss to the respondent-Bank and the order dated February 27, 2001 (Annexure P-2) whereby his appeal against the order of compulsorily retirement was dismissed. He has also prayed for a direction to the respondent-Bank to reinstate him into service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner was working as a Peon in the respondent-Bank. He was served with the following charge sheet:- “ Charge No.1: On December 28, 1994, you were entrusted the duties of stamping of Demand Draft Book bearing Nos.223701- 223750. While performing your duty you have removed two Demand Draft leaves bearing Nos.223730 and 223747 with an intention to cheat the Bank. Charge No.2: You have instigated Mr. Harbhajan Singh, Gunman, RCC, Amritsar to open fictitious saving account in the name of -3- Civil Writ Petition No.16432 of 2006. Harbhajan Singh in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Maqboolpura, Amritsar. Mr. Harbhajan Singh at your instigation opened an account with OBC, Maqboolpura, Amritsar. Charge No.3: On December 31, 1994 in connivance with some other staff members of RCC, Amritsar, namely Mr. Harbhajan Singh and Mr. Gulzar Singh you have arranged for the presentation of one of the two Demand Drafts bearing No.223747 for Rs.9,76,000/- for payment to RCC, Amritsar, through Oriental Bank of Commerce, Maqboolpura, Amritsar, with an intention to cause financial loss to the Bank. The fate of other stolen Draft bearing No.223730 is still unknown and by virtue of it you have caused or likely to cause financial loss to the Bank.” An Inquiry Officer was appointed to investigate the charges. The petitioner participated in the departmental inquiry. The articles of charge were found to be proved against the petitioner and he was ordered to be compulsorily retired from service by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated April 07, 2000 (Annexure P-1). An appeal preferred by the petitioner -4- Civil Writ Petition No.16432 of 2006. against this order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated February 27, 2001 (Annexure P-2). On the aforementioned allegations, a criminal case was also got registered against the petitioner as per First Information Report No.4/1995 under Sections 380/ 420/ 468/ 471/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station `B' Division, Amritsar. However, he was acquitted in that case by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, vide judgment dated March 31, 2001 (Annexure P-3). After his acquittal in the Criminal case, the petitioner approached the respondent-Bank for withdrawal of the order of compulsory retirement vide his letter dated September 05, 2001. When no action was taken on his request, he served a legal notice dated February 08, 2002. He thereafter filed Civil Writ Petition No.8688 of 2002 in this Court, which was disposed of on May 30, 2002 with a direction to the respondent-Bank to decide the letter dated September 05, 2001 and legal notice dated February 08, 2002 within six months from the receipt of copy of the order. The request made by the petitioner in the letter dated September 05, 2001 and legal notice dated February 08, 2002 was rejected by the respondent-Bank vide order dated January 15, 2003 (Annexure P-5). In the written statement filed by the respondent- Bank, it has been pleaded that acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case would not stultify the outcome of the department proceedings. The petitioner was afforded full opportunity of -5- Civil Writ Petition No.16432 of 2006. being heard. After the Inquiry Officer submitted report against the petitioner, he was given sufficient opportunity by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. He was also given an opportunity of personal hearing, but he did not avail the same. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the records of this case, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. Acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case does not ipso facto entitle him to reinstatement in service. The acquittal does not affect the departmental action. The rules governing a criminal trial are so stringent that a delinquent official as an accused may get benefit of some lack of the prosecution and get acquittal, but that necessarily may not entitle him clearance in the departmental inquiry. In this case, the petitioner, being conversant with the procedures of the Bank, took advantage of the same and tried to defraud the Bank of Rs.9,76,000/- as soon as opportunity struck to him. On the basis of evidence led during inquiry, all the three charges, quoted above, were found to be proved against the petitioner. The punishment proposed for these charges was `Dismissal Without Notice'. However, taking a lenient view, the Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits and without disqualification for further employment. While passing the order Annexure P-1, the Disciplinary Authority observed as under:- -6- Civil Writ Petition No.16432 of 2006. “ Although acts committed by CSE have shaken the confidence of the institution as reposed in him and such acts are not only condemnable but also deserve the severest of the punishment, yet I have decided to substitute and modify the punishment of dismissal without notice _ _ _ _.Be compulsorily retired with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise at that stage and without disqualification for further employment.” While the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender/delinquent, the purpose of departmental proceedings is to deal with the delinquent official in such a manner as to serve as a deterrent to other employes. The strict rules of evidence and procedure do not apply in departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessarily required in order to record a conviction against the accused is also different as compared to the punishment in departmental proceedings. While acquitting the petitioner of the criminal charges levelled against him vide judgment dated March 31, 2001 (Annexure P-3), the learned Magistrate found that the investigation which had been carried out was extremely faulty one. In the case of Jaipal v. State of Haryana and others, 2003 (2) Recent Services Judgments 263, a Division Bench of -7- Civil Writ Petition No.16432 of 2006. this Court held that charge sheet served upon the delinquent official was not to be quashed merely on the ground that he had been acquitted in the criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Shashi Kumar v. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Managing Director, Panchkula, and another, 2005 (1) Services Law Reporter 659 to contend that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages. However, the ratio of that case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In that case, the order removing the petitioner from service had been passed basing it purely on the conviction of the petitioner by the Special Judge, Karnal, under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Later on, the petitioner therein was acquitted by this Court. In these circumstances, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that as the order removing the petitioner from service was passed by writing just one sentence that “in view of the conviction, the petitioner is removed from service”, the petitioner having been acquitted in appeal, the justification of the order of removal no longer existed. In the case reported as Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce, (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 572, the appellant was working as Chief Manager of the Oriental Bank of Commerce. He was charge-sheeted for misappropriating an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs of a customer. The Inquiry Officer found the charge to be proved. The Disciplinary -8- Civil Writ Petition No.16432 of 2006. Authority accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer and passed an order removing the appellant from service. The appellant challenged that order by way of filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. Allowing the writ petition, a Single Judge held that the main allegation of misappropriation of Rs.10 lakhs was unfounded and the amount actually went to the account of the Bank to be set off against overdrafts of the firms. In other words, no loss thereby was occasioned to the Bank. The learned Single Judge further held that the appellant having been discharged by the Criminal Court in a case based on the same allegation, there was no justification for any proceedings against him. However, reversing the decision, a Division Bench held that the transfer of amounts to the credit of three parties without any instruction from the beneficiary amounted to misappropriation of funds and, in any event, it was a grave irregularity in financial transactions indulged in by the appellant. The acts of the appellant showed lack of devotion to duty and integrity on his party. The appellant then filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and while dismissing the appeal of the appellant therein, it was so held:- “ xx xx xx. In such a situation the fact that no amount was lost to the bank would be no ground to take a lenient view for the proved misconduct of a bank officer. The appellant acted beyond his authority in -9- Civil Writ Petition No.16432 of 2006. breach of the Bank's regulation. It is a case of loss of confidence in the officer by the bank. In such a situation, it would be a futile exercise of judicial review to embark upon the decision of the disciplinary authority removing the officer from service, preceded by an inquiry, and to direct the bank to take back the officer in whom the bank had lost confidence, unless the decision to remove the officer was tainted with mala fides, or in violation of principles of natural justice and prejudicial to the officer. No such case is made out in the present case. “ It was further held by the Apex Court Suresh Pathrella's case (supra): “ Acquittal in a criminal case would be no bar for drawing up a disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent officer. The yardstick and standard of proof in a criminal case is different from the disciplinary proceeding. While the standard of proof in a criminal case is a proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental proceeding -10- Civil Writ Petition No.16432 of 2006. is preponderance of probabilities.” In the present case, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing the petitioner from service is a detailed and well-reasoned one, which was preceded by an inquiry. We find no reason to interfere in the same and to direct the respondent-Bank to take back the petitioner in service in whom it has lost confidence. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the decision to remove the petitioner was tainted with mala fides, or in violation of principles of natural justice and prejudicial to him. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE January 31, 2008. ak