STATE BANK OF INDIA versus R.B. SHARMA

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 417 · Decided: 10-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' ' . 
,, 
Ii_ ( ·;1 i "" 
STATE BANK OF INDIA 
V. 
R.B. SHARMA 
AUGUST 10, 2004 
.. ., [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
.< "1"~, 
! 
I 
. ' • 
~II'. 
,-.i.,i,Service Law:, 
A 
B 
· " 
Dep~rtmen;al proceedings and criminal pro~eedings-Stay of de-
'' p~rtmental pro_ceedings till conclusion of criminal proceedings-Permis- C 
sibility of-Held : Both the proceedings can go on simultaneously unless 
the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated 
questions of fact and law-Criteria for granting stay is to see whether the 
departmental proceedings would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his 
defence at the trial in criminal case-Granting stay would depend on facts D 
and circumstances of each case-Matter remitted back for reconsidera-
tion-Penal Code, 1860-Sections 406, 409, 420, 467 and l 20B-Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder XXXIX Rules 1 and 2-State Bank of India 
Officers Service Rules-Rules 67 and 68. 
"Criminal Prosecution" and "Departmental Enquiry "-Distinction E 
between. 
Departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent-
employee for alleged commission of offences under IPC. Criminal 
proceedings were also initiated by the appellant-Bank for the alleged F 
offences. Respondent filed a suit alongwith an application under Order 
XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 CPC with prayer to stay the departmental 
proceedings. Trial Court stayed the departmental proceedings. First 
Appellate Court set aside the order of trial Court. High Court setting 
aside the order of First Appellate Court, directed stay of departmental 
proceedings, till the conclusion of the criminal case holding that G 
employee had been able to show that the matter in both the proceedings 
was the same. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter back to High 
Court, the Court 
H 
417 
418 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1.1. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously 
with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the 
charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated 
questions of fact and law. The purpose of departmental enquiry and 
of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Crime is an act 
B of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. When 
trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with 
proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions 
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The departmental enquiry is to 
maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. Strict 
C standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded. 
It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are 
conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. What is required 
to be seen is whether the department enquiry would seriously prejudice 
the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always 
a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own 
D facts and circumstances. It is not therefore, desirable to lay down any 
guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings 
may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the 
delinquent officer. [421-E-G; 422-C-D; 421-G-H) 
E 
Depot Manager, A.I'. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. 
Yousuf Miya and Ors., [1997] 2 SCC 699; State of Rajasthan v. B.K. 
Meena, [1996] 6 SCC 417 and Capt. M Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold 
Mines Ltd. and Anr., [1999] 3 SCC 679, relied on. 
2. High Court came to an abrupt conclusion that the petitioner in 
F the case before it (the employee) has been able to show substantially that 
the entire matter in the departmental proceedings and before criminal 
court is the same. No details have been indicated to justify this conclusion. 
Since High Court has not indicated even skeleton basis for his conclusion 
that matter is substantially the same, it would be appropriate for the 
G High Court to re-hear the matter. [423-G-H; 424-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5121 of 
2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21. I 0.2003 of the Delhi High 
H Court in C.M.(M). No. 294 of 2003. 
S.B.I. v. R.B. SHARMA [PASAYAT, J.] 
419 
Gopal Subramanium, Raj iv Kapur, Sanjay Kapur and Sanjeev Kumar A 
for the Appellants. 
Respondent-in-person. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
ARIJIT PASA YAT, J, : Leave granted. 
By the impugned judgment a learned
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.