AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (D) THR. LRS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 86 · Decided: 25-09-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 9 S.C.R. 86 
A 
AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (D) THR. LRS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7005 of 2012) 
B 
SEPTEMBER 25, 2012 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Service Law - Dismissal - On grounds of misconduct -
C . Appellant, Bank Manager, alleged to have been involved in 
fraudulent transactions - Prosecuted ulss. 120B, 420, 467, 
468, 471 ;;ind 201 /PC alongwith three account holders -
However, subsequently appellant and the other co-accused 
acquitted of all the charges by the criminal court -
o Simultaneous to the criminal proceedings, respondent bank 
had initiated departmental proceedings against the appellant 
which led to his dismissal from service - Order of dismissal 
in challenge - Plea of appellant that the departmental 
proceedings conducted against him were vitiated as he had 
E been acquitted by the criminal court and continuation of 
departmental proceedings after the appellant was acquitted 
in the criminal trial was in violation of the principle underlying 
Article 20(2) of the Constitution - Held: Departmental 
proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, 
F except where both the proceedings are based on the same 
set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is 
common -
The instant case did not fall within the said 
exception as the departmental proceedings herein and the 
criminal case were not grounded upon the same set of facts 
and evidence - The basic charge against the appellant in the 
G departmental proceedings was that he failed to discharge his 
duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence 
to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and acted in a 
manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer - Said charge had 
H 
86 
AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (D) THR. LRS. v. 
87 
UNION OF INDIA 
nothing to do with any criminal liability attaching to such 
A 
conduct - Failure of the prosecution in producing necessary 
evidence before the criminal cowt cannot have any adverse 
impact on the evidentiary value of the material produced by 
the Bank before the Inquiry Officer in the departmental 
proceedings - Before the Inquiry Officer, the Bank had placed 
B 
on record all the relevant documents which clearly establish 
that appellant had exceeded his discretionary powers in 
purchasing cheques and issuing demand drafts to show 
undue favour to three construction companies - Appellant 
failed to maintain the high standards of integrity as required c 
of the Bank officials and acted in violation of the Service 
Rules -
Order of dismissal also not vitiated by non-
application of mind - There was no breach of the rule of 
natural justice - Order of dismissal accordingly not interfered 
with - State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 -
0 
rr.50(4), 67(j) and 68(2)(iii) - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.120B, 
420, 467, 468, 471 and 201. 
Service Law - Departmental proceedings - If can be 
conducted simultaneously to criminal trial - Legal position 
discussed -
Held: Departmental proceedings can be 
E 
conducted simultaneously to criminal trial - The only valid 
ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be 
stayed 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 
F 
questions of facts and law - Such defence ought not to be 
permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental 
proceedings - Interest of the delinquent officer as well as the 
emplc;iyer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the 
disciplinary proceedings - Departmental proceedings can go 
G 
on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the 
proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the 
evidence in both the proceedings is common. 
Service Law - Conduct - Bank officials - Standard of 
H 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
integrity required of them - Held: Bank officials act as trustees 
of funds deposited by the public with the Bank - They have 
an obligation to earn the trust and confidence of not only the 
account holders but also the general public - High standards 
of integrity is required of the Bank officials, particularly the 
B cashiers, accountants, auditors and the Management at all 
levels - They must be above suspicion. 
The appellant, a Branch Manager in the State Bank 
of India, was alleged to have been involved in fraudulent 
C transactions to the tune of Rs. 12 crores. After completion 
of inves

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