ALLAHABAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ALLAHABAD versus VIDHYA VARIDH MISHRA

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 11-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ l· 
ALLAHABAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE 
BANK LTD., ALLAHABAD 
v. 
VIDHYA VARIDH MISHRA 
AUGUST 11, 2004 
[S.N. VARIAVA AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
A 
B 
Termination of service-Charges against employee-Disciplinary 
proceedings and criminal trial-In disciplinary proceeding minor punish- C 
ment by Authority-Minor punishment not approved and subsequently 
services terminated-Acquittal by Criminal Court-Application for recon-
sideration of termination rejected by Authority-Writ petition-Termina-
tion order not challenged-Courts below directed reinstatement on the 
ground that double punishment awarded-On appeal, held: Reinstatement D 
not correct as there was no double punishment as minor punishment was 
not awarded-Also because termination order not challenged-Discipli-
nary Authority may arrive at a conclusion different from that of criminal 
Court. 
Respondent was employed with appellant-Bank. After a discipli- E 
nary enquiry he was found guilty of embezzlement and enquiry officer 
terminated his services and ordered for recovery of money. Adminis-
trative Committee proposed punishment of withholding two annual 
increments and recording adverse entries in character roll. However, 
the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, opined to terminate his services p 
in view of the gravity of the charges. Hence, his services were 
terminated. In criminal trial for the offence, respondent was convicted 
I 
by trial court but was exonerated of the charges by appellate Court. 
After being exonerated, he filed application to the Bank to reconsider 
the order of termination, but the same was rejected. He filed Writ G 
Petition in High Court but therein did not challenge the order of 
termination. High Court allowed the petition holding that he was 
subjected to double punishment for the same offence, i.e., withholding 
of two annul increments and adverse entry in character roll and also 
termination of services. The order was upheld by Division Bench of 
High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
479 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellant contended that termination was on the basis of convic-
tion and that the matter be remitted to High Court to give opportunity 
to respondent to amend the writ petition to show that the order of 
termination was on the basis of conviction in criminal trial. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD : I. There was no double punishment. The earlier proposal 
to impose minor punishment had not been approved by the Registrar. 
Therefore, the minor punishment had not been awarded or imposed. 
The participation of the respondent in the embezzlement having been 
proved, in a disciplinary inquiry, the proper punishment was termi-
nation of services. Moreover, the order of termination had not been 
challenged in the Writ Petition. There being no challenge to that 
Order, reinstatement could not have been directed. [482-E-F) 
D 
2.1. The termination was pursuant to a disciplinary inquiry. In a 
disciplinary inquiry a conclusion different from that arrived at by a 
criminal court, may be arrived at. The strict burden of proof required 
to establish guilty in a criminal court, is not required in disciplinary 
proceeding. The respondent had not claimed that the disciplinary 
E proceedings were not conducted fairly. As the termination was based on 
findings of the Disciplinary Committee, the fact that the Appellate Court 
exonerated the respondent, was of no consequence. (482-H; 483-A-B) 
F 
G 
2.2. It is clear that the order of termination was based on the 
findings given in the disciplinary proceedings. On these findings, it 
cannot be said that the order of termination was not correct and hence 
the matter cannot be remitted back to High Court. (483-C; 483-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5179 of 
2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.7.2001 of the Allahabad High 
Court in S.A. No. 214 of 1998. 
Amrendra Sharan, D.K. Goswami and Mukesh K. Giri for the 
H Appellant. 
ALLAHABAD DJSIT. CO-OP. BANK LTD. v. V.V. MISHRA [VARIAVA, J.] 481 
M.N. Rao, Satya Mitra Garg and Mrs. Manju Aggarwal for the A 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.N. V ARIA VA, J. : Leave granted. 
Heard parties. 
This appeai is against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 
20th July, 2001. 
Briefly stated the facts are as follows. 
B 
c 
The Respondent was working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Appel-
lant-Bank. In October 1978, he was suspended in connec

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.