HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.626 OF 2002 Dt.23.9.2010 Between: K.Stephen ..Petitioner And The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Labour, Employment, Training & Factories Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.626 OF 2002 ORDER: Petitioner questions the award passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.192 of 1999, dated 27.10.2000, upholding the dismissal order dated 9.1.1992 passed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner joined in the respondent bank as Clerk in the year 1980. While he was working as Clerk in State Bank of India, Tirumalagiry Branch, Hyderabad, the following charges were framed against him: (i) On 4.9.1987, you had posted S.B. withdrawal order for Rs.26,300/- relating to the S.B. Account No.4/908 as a transfer voucher without verifying the genuineness of the depositors signature on the withdrawal form with that on record, even though the withdrawal form was not accompanied with relative pass book, and prepared an application for issuance of a draft for Rs.26,246/- after deducting Rs.54/- towards exchange, drawn on State Bank of India, Palimarwar Branch, in favour of M/s.Naresh Trading Company. Further, you had also failed to put the said withdrawal in cheque referred and returned register as required. (ii) On 11.8.1987, you had deliberately informed Smt.Vidya, Clerk to transfer an amount which was lying in S.B. In operative account for credit of S.B. Account No.4/908 in the name of Sri Ganshamdas Malani with a mala fide intention to transfer the amount of Rs.26,300/- therein for issuance of draft for Rs.26,246/- as shown above. (iii) You had again got cancelled the relative draft on 11.9.1987 and arranged for payment to a third party. You had yourself issued a token to the beneficiary and prepared relative vouchers. It is therefore alleged that you had indulged in the perpetration of a fraud to the tune of Rs.26,300/- and the bank has suffered a pecuniary loss as also a loss of image and goodwill. This amounts to major misconduct in terms of 521(4) (j) of the Sastry Award read with paragraph 18.28 of the Desai Award.” As per the aforesaid charges, the petitioner has unauthorizedly transferred the amount of Rs.26,300/- from the inoperative account of one of the customers to another account and thereafter got a draft for Rs.26,264/- issued in favour of M/s.Naresh Trading Company, which was cancelled and encashed at his instance, resulting in a fraud of unauthorized withdrawal from the said account. An enquiry officer was appointed and after conducting enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted the report holding that all the charges are proved. Thus, it is the case that the respondent bank has suffered a pecuniary loss as also loss of image and good will. Therefore, the respondent bank has imposed the punishment of dismissal of service against the petitioner by order, dated 9.1.1992. Criminal proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner. In so far as departmental proceedings are concerned, fraud committed by the petitioner has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the final order of dismissal has been passed. As against the said dismissal order, the petitioner also filed an appeal before the appellate authority and considering the entire evidence on record and also the gravity of the misconduct, the appellate authority confirmed the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed I.D.No.192 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. The Tribunal after considering the contentions of both sides held that the nature and scope of a criminal case is different from that of departmental disciplinary proceedings and the order of acquittal is not binding on the departmental proceedings as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Nelson Motis v. Union of India[1]. On re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held as follows: “Therefore, the above deposition of P.W.2, Smt.Vidya Ranga Lingam in which she has made before the enquiry officer to the effect that the workman was orally asked her to transfer S.B. A/c.4- 908 from inoperative to operative, so neither to say that she has done this transaction on her own with a malafide intention. So the workman might have asked the counter clerk Smt.Vidya to prepare the voucher and got signed by Thyagaraja, the passing official, both them have not followed the procedure laid down in the matter relying on the words of the workman, Smt.Rajitabala, Accountant has deposed before the enquiry officer on 11.9.1987, the person who has taken the draft of Rs.26,246/- was drawn on Pali Marwal Branch, Naresh Trading Company has came to me with a request to cancel that draft. At that time the draft counter was very heavy. She told him to come next day. He has gone back and returned after 20 minutes along with Mr.Steven and also with a letter. By that time issuing of token, writing of securing debit schedule and noting of cancellation of draft application, noting on the face of the draft and signature on the revenue stamp on the reverse side of the draft were all done. By seeing all this she asked the workman that why it is being cancelled and pointed out about the hurry at time of cancellation. For this the workman told her that the person representing Naresh Trading Company has come from Secunderabad and as he is leaving immediately, they should pay cash to him, hence requested her to kindly cancel the draft and arrange for payment. Then she pointed out the workman that she has not collected any cancellation charges. He immediately prepared a credit voucher for Rs.10/-. She has asked the person to sign once more on the reverse of the draft and passed the vouchers after tallying the signature on draft application and on the reverse of draft by the time this entire transaction was completed, it was nearing 2.00 p.m.” Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the charges are proved beyond all reasonable doubt and fraud played by the petitioner in getting the voucher cancelled is established as per the enquiry report and he was rightly dismissed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal court acquitted the petitioner in C.C.No.48 of 1990 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, by judgment, dated 6.1.1995, and the said judgment of the criminal court is binding on the department and it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed misconduct as held by the respondent bank as well as the Tribunal and therefore petitioner is entitled for modification of the punishment. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that the Banking industry runs on trust and honesty of its employees and the proven acts of fraud committed by the petitioner shakes the very confidence reposed on the petitioner and considering the gravity of the acts committed by the petitioner the order of dismissal from service is just and fair. So far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in view of the acquittal of the criminal court the petitioner is entitled for modification of the punishment is concerned, I am unable to accept the said contention. The petitioner was imposed the punishment basing on the charges proved in the departmental proceedings. If the delinquent employee is convicted on criminal charge, the disciplinary authority must consider the relevant facts and circumstances in relation to the conduct and the conviction on the criminal charge and pass appropriate orders without any further enquiry. But, if the delinquent is acquitted by the criminal court, the said judgment of the criminal court is not binding on the departmental proceedings. The scope and nature of the departmental proceeding is different and distinct from that of the criminal proceedings. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal rightly rejected the contentions of the petitioner while passing the award. The Division Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.Rajasekhar (W.P.No.8000 of 2009 and batch, dated 17.11.2009) considering the scope of the departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings held that the judgment of the criminal court is not binding on the departmental proceedings. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 23.9.2010 kpr [1] AIR 1992 SC 1981