LexINDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ANNA SALAI AND ANR. versus P. GANESAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ANNA SALA! AND ANR. v. P. GANESAN AND ORS. NOVEMBER 23, 2007 B )- (S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Constitution of India, 19 50-Art. 226--Writ petition seeking stay c of disciplinary proceedings, pending criminal proceedings-Allowed by High Court-Held: Departmental proceedings pending a criminal proceeding do not warrant automatic stay-Superior Courts before exercising discretionary jurisdiction in this regard must consider whether charges as also evidence in both proceedings are common and ,_ D as to whether any complicated question of law is involved in the matter-Also discretionary jurisdiction should be exercised keeping ;. in view conduct <if parties-On facts, there were additional charges against delinquent employees besides charges of damaging bank property which was not subject matter of allegations in the criminal E case-Furthermore, disciplinary proceedings had proceeded to a great extent-In such a situation, discretionary jurisdiction should not have been exercised in favour of delinquent employees by High Court- Service Law-Stay of disciplinary proceedings pending criminal proceedings. F Respondent nos.1 to 4, office bearers of an employee association operating in the appellant-bank, allegedly assaulted respondent no.5, President of anotlter rival association, and also caused damage to bank property. Criminal proceedings were initiated against respondent nos. 1 to 4. Besides, appellant-bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against G respondent nos. I to 4. They filed a writ petition before the High Court, ·)....__ ... .., which deferred the departmental proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 till conclusion of their criminal trial. In the instant appeal filed by the bank, it was contended for the H 474 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ANNA SALA! v. 475 ~" P.GANESAN appellant that the High Court committed a serious error in staying the A departmental enquiry proceedings as the same had proceeded to a great extent. Allowing the appeal, the Court • HELD: 1.1. Departmental proceedings pending criminal B _, proceedings do not warrant an automatic stay. The Superior Courts before exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in this regard must take into consideration the fact as to whether the charges as also the evidence in both the proceedings are common and as to whether any complicated c question oflaw is involved in the matter. [Para 15] [483-C] 1.2. In the instant case, the High Court was not correct in its view in concluding that the stay of the departmental proceedings should be granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It misdirected J.. itself in law. What was necessary to be noticed by the High Court was not only existence ofidentical facts and the evidence in the matter, it D was also required to take into consideration the question as to whether the charges levelled against the delinquent officers, both in the criminal case as also the disciplinary proceedings, were same. Furthermore, it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to arrive at a finding that E non stay of disciplinary proceedings shall not only prejudice the· delinquent officers but the matter also involves a complicated question oflaw. Before the High Court no contention was raised that because + respondentnos.1to4 are office bearers of a trade union, the authorities were biased against them. Nothing has been shown that any complicated F question oflaw arose for determination in the criminal case. [Paras 20 and 22] [485-E, F, G; 486-C] 1.3. The standard of proof in a disciplinary proceeding and that in a criminal trial is different If there are additional charges against the G L-.. •. _,c delinquent officers, besides the charges of damaging the property belonging to the bank, which was not the subject matter of allegations in a criminal case, the departmental proceedings should not have been stayed. Furthermore, respondent nos.1 to 4 have since moved the High Court for quashing of the order taking cognizance of offence against H 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A them in the criminal proceedings and the criminal proceedings have been stayed. [Paras 21and22) [486-A, BJ Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Sarvesh Berry, (2005) 10 SCC 471; G.M Tank v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2006) 5 B SCC 446 and Sathi V!fay Kumar v. Tota Singh and Ors., (2006) 14 Scale 199,distinguished. ~ '
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.