STATE BANK OF INDIA versus P. ZADENGA

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 740 · Decided: 03-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 740 : 2023 INSC 868
740
CASE DETAILS
STATE BANK OF INDIA
v.
P. ZADENGA
(Civil Appeal No. 2518 of 2012)
OCTOBER 03, 2023
[HRISHIKESH ROY AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether clause 4 of the Memorandum 
of Settlement (MoS) dated 10th April 2002 create a bar on departmental 
proceedings continuing when the person subjected thereto is being tried 
before a criminal court for oﬀ ences of the same origin; and whether 
acquittal in some of the connected proceedings entail a beneﬁ t in the 
surviving proceedings, inuring a right upon the delinquent employee of 
automatic discharge in disciplinary proceedings.
Service Law – Departmental proceedings pending criminal trial 
arising from the same transactions, if to be stayed – Acquittal in one 
of the proceedings if entails an acquittal in the other:
Held: Clause 4 of the MoS does not envisage a complete standstill 
of departmental proceedings as a result of the pendency of criminal 
proceedings – It may be desirable or, in certain circumstances, advisable 
for disciplinary proceedings to be stayed when criminal proceedings 
are ongoing however, stay is not "a matter of course" and is only to be 
given after consideration of all factors, for and against – Departmental 
proceedings cannot be unduly and unjustly delayed – It is only after the 
completion of the entire process of disciplinary proceedings that the 
respondent relying upon clause 4 of the MoS ﬁ led writ petition challenging 
the action, which was a belated attempt only to forestall its implementation 
– Further, completion of trial must be construed as completion “within 
the reasonable time frame” and the clause cannot come to the aid of the 
employee “more so”, for “prolongation on the trial” – In the instant case, 
the completion of the trial concerning the crime registered in the year 1996 
741
STATE BANK OF INDIA v. P. ZADENGA
is nowhere nearing completion – On facts, no plea of MoS was ever taken 
– No speciﬁ c plea of postponement of disciplinary proceedings awaiting 
conclusion of a criminal trial was made – Neither was it the case that the 
trial to which the respondent was subjected to begin within one year of 
the commission of the oﬀ ence nor does the record speak to this eﬀ ect – It 
is not mandatory to stay the disciplinary proceedings particularly when 
they were initiated after the prescribed period of one year – The restriction 
within clause 4 is not complete and is to be applied on facts – Furthermore, 
the nature of proceedings being wholly separate and distinct, acquittal in 
criminal proceedings does not entitle the delinquent employee for any 
beneﬁ t in the latter or automatic discharge in departmental proceedings 
and would also not tantamount to closure or culmination of proceedings 
in favour of the delinquent employee – Impugned judgment set aside – 
Respondent’s dismissal from service restored. [Paras 14.2, 15, 19, 22-24, 
26 and 28-30]
Service Law – Simultaneous departmental and criminal 
proceedings, principles to deal with – Discussed.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State Bank of India & Ors. v. Neelam Nag (2016) 9 SCC 491 : [2016] 
5 SCR 278; State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 417 : 
[1996] 7 Suppl. SCR 68; M Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) 
3 SCC 679 : [1999] 2 SCR 257; Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. 
v. C. Nagaraju (2019) 10 SCC 367; Nelson Motis v. Union of India (1992) 
4 SCC 711 : [1992] 1 Suppl. SCR 325; State of Karnataka v. Umesh (2022) 
6 SCC 563 – relied on.
United Commercial Bank & Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 : 
[2003] 1 SCR 1034 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2518 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.01.2009 of the High Court of 
Gauhati in WA No. 3 of 2006.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
742
Appearances:
Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Kapur, Surya Prakash, Arjun Bhatia, 
Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Keshav Khandelwal, Advs. for the Appellants.
Jitendra Bharti, Deepak Goel, Mithilesh Kumar Jaishwal, Ms. Alka 
Goyal, Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KAROL, J.
The instant lis presents two questions for consideration by this Court. 
They are- 
(a) Does clause 4 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April 
2002 create a bar on departmental proceedings continuing when 
the person subjected thereto is being tried before a c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.