Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26 12:27:45 +0530 2025:CGHC:35682-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 394 of 2025 1 Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Its Managing Director Cum Chairman, Head Office, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) (Respondent No.1) 2 Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Its Regional Manager, Regional Office First Floor, Vivek Complex, Sangam Gali, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.2) 3 Branch Manager Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch Office, Sedam, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.3) ... Petitioner(s) versus Sandip Kumar Singh S/o Ravindra Pratap Singh Aged About 26 Years Working As Office Assistant (Suspended), R/o Village Ghoghra, Police Station And Tehsil Batouli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, Since The Petitioner Is In Jail In Respect Of The Crime No. 36/2017, Registered At Police Station Batouli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, The Present Writ Petition Is Being Filed Through His Wife Namely Smt. Vinita Paikara W/o Sandip Kumar Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Ghoghra, Police Station And Tehsil Batouli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.07.2025 1. Heard. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondents assailing the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 2377/2018 by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition with a direction that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner be stalled till the criminal case is finally concluded and thereafter the respondents would be at liberty to proceed further from the stage the enquiry proceedings are fixed as on date. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status in the writ court. After order passed by the writ court the appellants/ respondents preferred MCC No. 641 of 2022 seeking clarification/ modification of the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the writ court in WPS No. 2377 of 2018. 3 During pendency of the said MCC the appellants filed WA No. 875
Decision
of 2024. However, the said writ appeal was disposed off with a direction that MCC No. 641 of 2022 be decided expeditiously. Thereafter, the MCC was listed before the learned Single Judge and the same has been dismissed by order dated 17.02.2025. 3. In the instant writ appeal, the appellants/respondents sought for the following reliefs : a. Set aside the order dated 17.02.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in MCC No. 641/2022, and be further pleased to hold that the learned Single judge erred in law and on facts in declining to modify the earlier interim directions granted in WPS No. 2377/2018 b. Be further pleased to modify, set-aside, or clarify the directions contained in the order dated 27.03.2018, passed in WPS No. 2377/2018, to the extent that it indefinitely stays the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent, and instead be pleased to grant liberty to the Appellant Bank to proceed with the departmental inquiry against the respondent from the stage it was stayed, in accordance with law, notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal trial; 4 c. In the alternative, and without prejudice to the above, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate directions to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, District Surguja, for expeditious and time-bound disposal of Criminal Case No. 330/2017, arising out of Crime No. 36/2017, within such period as may be deemed fit and reasonable by this Hon'ble Court, and be further pleased to direct that in the event the trial is not concluded within such time, the Appellant Bank shall be permitted to proceed with the departmental inquiry from the stage it was stalled; d. Pass any further orders, directions or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice and institutional discipline 4. Initially the writ petitioner/ respondent herein preferred WPS No. 2377 of 2018 by contending that the petitioner was working as office assistant at Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank and posted at Branch Sedam. A complaint was lodged at Police Station Batouli, District Surguja in respect of certain misappropriation and embezzlement in the accounts maintained at branch of the respondents at Sedam. An FIR was lodged and in the process the petitioner also was implicated as an accused in the said case. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 409 5 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC vide crime No. 36 of 2017 registered at Police Station Batouli. Meanwhile, the petitioner was arrested and remained in jail for quite sometime. He later on was placed under suspension. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and two other accused persons for the offences as mentioned above. The matter was put to trial before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, Distt. Surguja in criminal case No.330 of 2017. Meanwhile, while under suspension, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 29.08.2017 wherein about 100 charges have been framed against the petitioner as per the provisions of Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank and Employees Service Regulation Rules, 2013. The petitioner replied to the said charges and finally not finding the reply satisfactory, the respondents have decided to proceed further with the departmental enquiry. The inquiry officer and presenting officer were also appointed. It is this initiation of departmental proceedings which has been questioned by the petitioner in the instant petition and according to petitioner, the substantive charges leveled against the petitioner in the criminal case is the same as is the charges which is levelled against the petitioner in the departmental charge sheet issued on 29.08.2017. Further the substantive right of the petitioner would get adversely affected in case if the bank authorities proceed with the departmental enquiry and there is all possibility that his defence 6 before the criminal court would get prejudiced, and therefore, pending the criminal case before the criminal court, the departmental enquiry should be stalled. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition observing thus at paras 6 to 10:- 6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, it would be relevant to refer the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Neelam Nag (Supra). If we peruse the allegations leveled against the petitioner in criminal case for which he has been prosecuted for the offence under Sections 409 and 420 IPC, it would clearly establish that the charges which have been levelled in the departmental charges are in fact the same transactions and if not all, most of the charges are the same. 7. The witnesses which would be required to prove the criminal case also would be the documents maintained in the Bank and the officers available at the Bank plus account holders both in the criminal case as also before the departmental enquiry which forces this court to reach to the conclusion that the proceedings before the two forums i.e. criminal case 7 as well as before the inquiry officer are on the same set of facts and same witnesses would also be required to be examined for proving the case before both the forums. 8. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer the decision of Supreme Court in case of Karnataka SRTC Vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, 2012 (1) SCC 442, wherein the Supreme Court has summed up the same in the following words: “(i) There is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously. (ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stated would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts or law. (iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding simultaneously to the officer as well as the 8 employer clearly lies in a prompt (iv) Departmental proceedings can go on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on is common." (emphasis supplied)” 9. Likewise, if we peruse the decision rendered in Neelam Nag (Supra), it would reveal that the Supreme Court in the said case also initially had taken note of the fact that charges which have been levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case and also in the disciplinary proceeding, if not identical, almost are on similar set of facts and witnesses also relied upon before the two forums being similar, the disciplinary action against the petitioner was stalled for a period of one year. The period of one year was perhaps for the reason that the proceedings before the criminal court was going on since long, whereas, in the instant case the departmental proceedings have been initiated recently. Therefore, at this juncture, it would be in the interest of justice that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner be stalled till the criminal case is finally concluded and thereafter the respondents 9 would be at liberty to proceed further from the stage the inquiry proceedings are fixed as on date. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.” 6. Thereafter, the respondents/ appellants preferred MCC and sought for the following reliefs:- a. Allow the present petition seeking clarification /modification of the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WPS No. 2377/2018 to the extent as mentioned in the present petition, enabling the present Petitioner to proceed with the departmental enquiry. (b) Allow the present petition seeking clarification / modification of the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WPS No. 2377/2018 and permit the Petitioner to proceed with the departmental enquiry contemplated against the Respondent herein after imposing appropriate conditions as prayed for in the present petition. (c) Pass any further appropriate writ, order, direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. During pendency of the said MCC, the respondents/Bank filed a 10 writ appeal No. 875 of 2024, which was disposed off by order dated 03.01.2025 observing thus at paras 4 & 5:- 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that MCC No. 641 of 2022 has been filed for modification of the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge which is impugned herein. The said MCC was listed on 02.12.2022 before the learned Single Judge who has passed the impugned order and the matter was posted for 02.01.2023, but the same could not be listed. The learned counsel for the appellants also filed an application for urgent hearing. 5. In view of the above, the MCC No. 641 of 2022 be placed before appropriate Bench as per the roster on 13.01.2025 after nomination from Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the learned Single Judge is requested to dispose off MCC No. 641 of 2022, expeditiously. 8. Subsequently, the MCC was listed before the learned Single Judge, who after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the MCC on 17.02.2025 as under:- 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that in pursuance of the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 2377 of 2018, departmental proceedings initiated against the 11 respondent / employee has been stalled till conclusion of concerned criminal case pending against the respondent, but till date criminal case has not been concluded, therefore, the applicant may be permitted to conclude departmental proceedings against respondent by modifying aforesaid order dated 27.03.2018 passed by this Court. 3. In WPS No. 2377 of 2018, this Court has passed the following order on 27.03.2018, which reads as under :- "9. Likewise, if we peruse the decision rendered in State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Neelam Nag & Anr. 2016 (9) SCC 491, it would reveal that the Supreme Court in the said case also initially had taken note of the fact that charges which have been levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case and also in the disciplinary proceeding, if not identical, almost are on similar set of facts and witnesses also relied upon before the two forums being similar, the disciplinary action against the petitioner was stalled for a period of one year. The period of one year was perhaps for the reason that the proceedings before the criminal court was going on since long, whereas, in the instant case the departmental proceedings 12 have been initiated recently. Therefore, at this juncture, it would be in the interest of justice that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner be stalled till the criminal case is finally concluded and thereafter the respondents would be at liberty to proceed further from the stage the Inquiry proceedings are fixed as on date. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of." 4. Having considered the clear-cut finding recorded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court based on judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Neelam Nag (supra) that "in the interest of justice that the departmental proceedings against the respondent be stalled till the criminal case is finally concluded and thereafter the applicants would be at liberty to proceed further from the stage the inquiry proceedings are fixed as on date", this Court is of the view that neither order reserving review is found to be made nor any modification is required in the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by this Court in WPS No. 2377 of 2018. As such, this MCC is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the MCC fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ respondents 13 (Bank) would submit that the departmental proceedings is different from a criminal proceeding. He further submits that the fundamental difference between the two is that in a departmental proceeding, a delinquent employee can be held guilty on the basis of "preponderance of probabilities", whereas in a criminal court the prosecution has to prove its case "beyond reasonable doubt", the yardstick for the two enquiries are different and only in the case when the witnesses that are to be examined in both proceedings are identically the same, it is desirable that the departmental enquiry may be kept in abeyance only with respect to those witnesses. (b) Learned counsel would submit that an absolute stay of the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the trial would severely prejudice the Petitioner case. It is no longer res integra that both the proceedings can go on simultaneously if one is not causing any prejudice to the defense of the accused. According to him, there cannot be a straight jacket formula to defer the departmental proceedings for an unreasonably long period if the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time. He further submits that even after lapse of several years from the date of the commission of the offence, the bank is unable to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the delinquent despite there being a prima facie case against the respondent. 14 (c) According to the learned counsel, albeit 100 charges were framed against the respondent but the charges which have been framed in the departmental proceedings are not the same and the witnesses in the departmental proceedings are also different besides there appears to be some common witnesses. He would further submit that 08 years have been passed of the departmental proceedings, which have been stayed on account of order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent herein would oppose the aforesaid submission and submit that substantive charges levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case is the same as is the charges which is levelled against the respondent in the departmental charge sheet issued on 29.08.2017. He further submits that substantive right of the writ petitioner would get adversely affected in case if the bank authorities proceed with the departmental enquiry and there is all possibility that his defence before the criminal court would get prejudiced, and therefore, pending the criminal case before the criminal court, the departmental enquiry should be stalled. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 12. It is an admitted fact that there is no legal bar for both the proceedings i.e. criminal and departmental to go on 15 simultaneously. The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stated would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. In the case at hand out of 66 prosecution witnesses only statement of 14 witness have been recorded and 8 years have been passed and on account of order of this court the departmental enquiry has been stalled. It is also to be seen that in the departmental enquiry total 100 charges were framed against the writ petitioner and, according to the Bank, most of the charges are different than the criminal charges. Even, the witnesses in the departmental proceedings are also different besides there appears to be some common witnesses. 13. The order in question passed by learned Single Judge by stalling the departmental proceedings against the petitioner till the criminal case is finally concluded. In the present case it has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank that though the trial has been commenced and out of 66 witness only 14 witness have been examined during the period of 8 years and because of the order in question the departmental proceedings have been stalled whereas in the case of State Bank of India and Others v Neelam Nag & Another reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491, the Supreme Court held at para 29 as under:- “29. If the trial is not completed within one year from the 16 date of this order, despite the steps which the trial court has been directed to take, the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent shall be resumed by the enquiry officer concerned. The protection given to the respondent of keeping the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance shall then stand vacated forthwith upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of this order. “ 14. The aforesaid decision has been followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. P. Zadenga reported in 2023 (10) SCC 675 and observed that it may be desirable or in certain circumstances advisable for disciplinary proceedings to be stayed pending criminal proceedings but it is not “matter of course”. It further held that proceedings to be stayed only for reasonable period of time depending on circumstances of each case. Completion of trail to be construed as completion “ within reasonable time frame” and the same cannot aid employee, more so per prolongation of trial. Paras 30 and 31 of the aforesaid decision read as under:- 30. Repetitive as it may sound, we reiterate the principle of law enunciated in Neelam Nag (supra) that the completion of trial must be construed as completion “within the reasonable time frame” and that the clause cannot come to the aid of the employee “more so”, for “prolongation on 17 the trial”. In the instant case, the completion of the trial concerning the crime registered in the year 1996 is nowhere nearing completion. 31. As a principle of law, we have already observed that a departmental proceeding pending criminal trial would not warrant an automatic stay unless, of course, a complicated question of law is involved. Also, acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto would not be tantamount to closure or culmination of proceedings in favour of a delinquent employee. 15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v Girish V. and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636 held that the court has to be mindful of fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be suspended indigently or delayed unduly. In the case at hand, it is reported that the enquiry proceedings are pending since last about 8 years. 16. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, the Writ appeal is disposed off with liberty to the appellant/ respondent/ Bank to proceed with the departmental proceedings against the writ petitioner (respondent herein) from where it was stopped pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 18 17. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the Bank may proceed in accordance with law and on its own merits. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Jyoti