THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.23908 OF 2004 BETWEEN Smt.A.lalitha wife of A.Venkata Raju ..petitioner vs. State Bank of India, rep.by Assistant Generalmanager, Region-IV,Visakhapatnam and two others. ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.23908 OF 2004 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents-Bank. The writ petition is filed by an Assistant of the State Bank of India for a declaration that the action of the respondents in holding a disciplinary proceedings even during the currency of the petitioner’s prosecution in Calendar Case No.139 of 2001 by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner entered the service of the Bank in 1997 as a Clerk-cum-Typist. While working at Rajahmundry she is alleged to have committed serious misconduct, namely, obtaining advance by a debit to the Branch Charges Account to meet postage expenses and the amounts so received not being accounted for in the postage register; not recording the actual amount incurred towards postage of various items and inflating amounts to misappropriate them; and other instances of misappropriation. In respect of the same instances of conduct Cr.No.151 of 2000 was registered against the petitioner on a written complaint from the Bank alleging offences under Section.408 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. Eventually in CC 139 of 2001 she is being prosecuted for the offence under Sec.408 IPC. No doubt the events leading to the petitioner’s prosecution as well as departmental inquiry are the same. The petitioner contends that simultaneous conduct of disciplinary proceedings and prosecution is prejudicial to her as she would be obligated to disclose her defences at the disciplinary proceedings, which in turn would adversely affect her defence in the prosecution. On behalf of the respondents-Bank a counter-affidavit had been filed stating that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner on 28-09-2000 apart from initiation of departmental action against her; she was kept under suspension on 09-11-2000 and in C.C.No.139 of 2001 though the charge-sheet was filed in December-2000 there was no further progress in the criminal case and it is being adjourned from time to time and the trial has not yet commenced. A counter-affidavit further states that since date of her suspension, on 9-11-2000 the petitioner was paid nearly Rs.3 lakhs by the respondents-Bank towards subsistence allowance and on account of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the Bank is suffering serious prejudice. The counter-affidavit further asserts that the alleged acts of misconduct by the petitioner are amply within the jurisdiction of departmental inquiry and as the disciplinary proceedings are against the acts of official misconduct of the petitioner there is no prohibition to a departmental proceedings being conducted simultaneously with prosecution. The principle is too well established that there is no bar to the conduct or disciplinary proceedings even when criminal proceedings are on and in respect of the same events giving rise to the different complaints, one in domestic inquiry and the other in criminal proceedings. The social purposes of a disciplinary proceedings are distinct. The standard of proof is distinct, sanctions in case a charged official is proved guilty is distinct as is the social purpose of a departmental inquiry even by a public employer. In the case of prosecution, the sanctions may include deprivation of liberty of the accused and the standard of proof is also higher. Both in a departmental inquiry as well as in prosecution, the petitioner is not obligated to make any statement and the burden is on the management or the prosecution as the case may be to establish the complicity or guilt of the charged employee or the accused as the case may be. The social costs of an interminable postponing of departmental inquiry particularly when the petitioner is an employee of a public sector institution are considerable. Society has a stake in the maintenance of efficiency and integrity in a public sector bank and therefore it is the bounden duty of the bank to ensure that allegations of misappropriation are not interminably protracted so as to enable an employee charged with such grave misconduct to continue on the rolls and in service for such prolonged period which may eventually lead to a finding of guilt and years after the events. Public confidence in the integrity and the efficiency of the function of a public sector bank could be severely diminished on such prolongation of disciplinary inquiry. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no justification for interference. The writ petition is without merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 31st JANUARY 2006 *TSNR