JASBIR SINGH versus PUNJAB & SIND BANK AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 62 · Decided: 31-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

..
'}-
"'""' 
A 
JASBIR SINGH 
v. 
PUNJAB & SINO BANK AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 31, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Service Law-Departmental proceedings-Initiation of. 1:Yhen employee 
"'' 1 
acquitted in criminal case on same allegation of embezzlement of funds-
" 
c Held: Employer-bank failing to prove charges against employee in both civil 
as well as criminal proceedings-Judgment of civil court that employer not 
entitled to recover amount not challenged by employer, and as such having 
attained finality, binding o~ employer-High Court in challenge made to 
dismissal order, failing to look into materials on record and also on decision 
of civil court-Thus, order of High Court that departmental proceedings 
D could have been initiated even after acquittal, set aside-Employee directed 
to be reinstated with back wages. 
Respondent-bank alleged that the appellant-employee had embezzled 
funds, forged the signature of the account holder and tampered with the 
records. Criminal case was initiated against him, however he was acquitted. 
., 
E Thereafter, departmental proceeding was initiated againsf the appellant, 
charges were proved and he was dismissed from service. In recovery suit, 
appellate court held that it was not proved that the appellant had embezzled 
the amount and as such was not entitled to recover the amount. In challenge 
made to the dismissal order, High Court held that the departmental 
F proceedings could have been initiated even after acquittal in criminal case. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Embezzlement of fund was the principal charge against the 
G appellant in all the proceedings. He is also said to have forged the signature 
of the account holder and tampered with the records. Respondent-Bank has 
tried to proceed against the appellant both in civil proceedings as well as in 
criminal proceedings and at both the independent forums, it failed to prove 
any of these charges. Therefore, impugned judgments are not sustainable and 
are set aside. Appellant is directed to be reinstated with back wages, continuity 
H 
62 
-, . 
-i _,.,... 
JASBIR SINGH v. PUNJAB & SIND BANK (S.B. SINHA, J.] 
63 
of service and other consequential benefits. [65-E-F; 67-D-E-FJ 
A 
2.1. The correctness of the judgment by the appellate court that the bank 
was not entitled to recover the amount from the appellant-employee, was not 
questioned by the Bank. It attained finality. The judgment in civil matter having 
attained finality, the same was binding on the respondent-Bank. j65-E; 66-A) 
B 
2.2. High Court should have applied its mind to the fact of the matter 
l • 
with reference to the materials brought on records. It failed so to do and also 
failed to take note of the decision of the civil court. It could not have refused 
to look into the materials on record solely relying on or on the basis of clause 
19.3(c) of Bipartite Settlement to hold that the departmental proceedings could c 
have been initiated even after the judgment of acquittal is passed in criminal 
case. j66-F-H; 67-Al 
2.3. The judgments of both the Civil Court and the Criminal Court 
established that the appellant was treated very unfairly and unreasonably. For 
all intent and purport, criminal case was foisted upon him. A confession was D 
extracted from him by the bank officers in a very cruel manner. 167-C-DI 
Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., JI999) 3 
~ .. 
SCC 679; Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors., 
JT (2006) 4 SC 404; Pratibha Rani v. Sura) Kumar, AIR (1985) SC 628: 
(198512 SCC 370; U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. v. Uday Narain E 
Pandey, (2006) I SCC 479, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8046 of2004. 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 11.7.2003 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C. W.P. No. 1682/2002. 
F 
R.V. Naik and Raja Raghavendra Naik [for Rameshwar Prasad Goyal] for 
the Appellant. 
<. 
J. Buther [for Ambhoj Kumar Sinha] for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
S.B. SINHA, J.: Appellant herein was appointed as peon and has been 
working in the said capacity in Respondent Bank with effect from 4.4.1984. 
He was confmned in his services. On an allegation made that he had forged 
the signature of a depositor Rattan Singh and fraudulently withdrawn a sum H 
,,. 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
..__ t. ... 
A of Rs. 25,000/-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.