STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus NEELAM NAG

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 278 · Decided: 16-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] S S.C.R. 278 
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
NEELAMNAG 
(Civil Appeal No. 471Sof2011) 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI. AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) 
Service Law - Conduct of disciplinary proceedings and 
criminal trial simultaneously, based on same facts - No straightjacket 
for111ula - Court to keep in 111ind the broad approach to be adopted 
in such matters on case to case basis - Respondent, a Public Sector 
Bank employee committed embezzlement way back in May 2006 -
Cri111inal complaint - Charge-sheet filed in 2007 - Trial of the 
criminal case, however, did not progress effectively over the years 
- Simultaneously appellant-Bank initiated departmental proceedings 
against the respondent - Division Bench of High Court stayed 
disciplinary proceedings against the respondent until the closure 
of recording of prosecution evidence in criminal case - Held: 
Pendency of criminal trial for around 10 years cannot be the sole 
basis to suspend disciplinary proceedings against the respondent 
for an indefinite period - However, arrangement 111ade by High 
Court cannot be vacated straightaway - In the interest of justice, 
direction issued that criminal case pending against the respondent 
be decided within one year - Disciplinary proceedings to resume 
after expiry of one year. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is well-settled that there is no legal bar to the 
conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial 
simultaneously. However, no straightjacket formula can be spelt 
out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be 
adopted in such matters on case to case basis. [Para 8) [291-E-F] 
2.1. The alleged .misconduct has been committed as far back 
as May 2006. FIR was registered on s•b December, 2006 and the 
charge-sheet was filed in the said criminal case on 61h February, 
2007. The contents of the charge-sheet are indicative of 
involvement of the respondent in the alleged offence. Resultantly, 
278 
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. v. NEELAM NAG 
the criminal Court has framed charges against the respondent as 
far back as 12'h June, 2007. The trial of that case, however, has 
not made any effective progress. Only 3 witnesses have been 
examined by the prosecution, out of 18 witnesses cited in the 
charge-sheet filed before the criminal Court. Indeed, listing of 
criminal case on 133 different dates after framing of charges is 
not solely attributable to the respondent. [Para 11) [294-B-C] 
2.2. Pendency of the criminal case against the respondent 
cannot be the sole basis to suspend the disciplinary proceedings 
initiated against the respondent for an indefinite period. [Para 
12) [294-G] 
3.1. The next question is: whether Clause 4 of the 
Memorandum of Settlement dated lO'h April 2002 would denude 
the appellants from continuing with the disciplinary proceedings 
pending against the respondent. The last sentence of Clause 4, 
applies to a case where the criminal case has in fact proceeded, 
as in this case, for trial. The term "completion of the trial" 
thereat, must be construed as completion of the trial within a 
reasonable time frame. This clause cannot come to the aid of the 
delinquent employee who has been named as an accused in a 
criminal case and more so is party to prolongation of the trial. 
Pendency of criminal trial for around 10 years, by no means, can 
be said to be a reasonable time frame to withhold the disciplinary 
proceedings. This view is fortified by first part of the said clause 
4 of the Settlement which envisages that if the Authority which 
has to start the prosecution refuses (read fails) to do so within 
one year from the commission of the offence, the departmental 
proceedings can be proceeded under Clause 11 and 12 of the 
Settlement. [Paras 13, 16 and 17) [294-H; 296-B, E-F) 
3.2. In the °fact situation of the present case, it is the first 
part of Clause 4 which is attracted. In that, respondent has been 
put on trial in connection with the alleged offence, by framing of 
charges after one year from the commission of the offence. [Para 
18) [296-G) 
3.3. Be that as it may, disciplinary proceedings instituted 
against the respondent cannot brook any further delay which is 
already pending for more than 10 years. Further, it is not 
considered fit to vacate the arrangement made by the High Court 
279 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
280 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 5 S.C.R. 
straightaway. Interests of justice

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