Delhi High Court
Rajiv Grover vs Indian Bank And Anr. on 18 August, 2004
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Rule.
With the consent of parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.
2. Petitioner-Rajiv Grover, has filed the present writ petition, seeking quashing/setting aside of the order closing the inquiry on 23.9.2003, without allowing him to lead evidence. A stay of further departmental proceedings was sought. Petitioner is being prosecuted for offences under Sections 409/420/468/471 IPC. These relate to an FIR lodged on 27.2.2001. The charge sheet in this case was filed by the police on 15.11.2001. The charges are stated to have been framed on 5.5.2003. Simultaneously, show cause notice for departmental inquiry for misconduct was issued on 8.11.2001.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ashok Bhalla, has relied on the Settlement Deed at Annexure P-1, in terms of which if an employee is not put to trial for an offence within a year of the commission of the offence, the departmental inquiry could be proceeded with. He further places reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge in R.K.Singla Vs.Punjab National Bank reported at wherein the Court considered the expression "put on trial." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment makes it clear that in case charges are framed Clause 19.4 of the Settlement would come into play and the departmental proceedings are liable to be stayed. Based on the above, Mr.Bhalla has submitted that the departmental proceedings are liable to be stayed.
4. Notice was issued in the writ petition on 29.10.2003. On 30.10.2003, it was contended by the respondent that the Inquiry Officer had completed the inquiry and submitted his report. A direction was, therefore, given that no effect be given to the inquiry report. At present the position is that the report of the Inquiry Officer is there. The management had led its evidence and petitioner has cross-examined the witnesses of the management, after beginning of the inquiry on 8.11.2001. The criminal trial is also going on. Confronted with this situation that the petitioner had participated in the inquiry and came to the Court only in the end of October, 2003, when the inquiry was at its fag end, learned counsel for the respondent urged that petitioner by participating had acquiesced in the inquiry being held and it is no longer open for the petitioner to wait and watch and then take a decision on raising the plea for stay of the inquiry. After both the counsel had made their submission an agreement was reached. With the consent of the parties, the following order is being passed:-
The inquiry report as submitted by the Inquiry Officer is set aside. The inquiry proceedings shall resume from the stage where it was left on 23.9.2003. Petitioner shall be entitled to lead evidence in defense. Petitioner is given the liberty to engage a representative from the union of his Bank or another Bank. However, this will not be treated as a precedent. The inquiry shall commence from 1.9.2004 and be completed by 31.12.2004. Petitioner shall appear before the Inquiry Officer on 1.9.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be permitted to move the Inquiry Officer for re-examination of one witness of the management. It would be for the petitioner to move the Inquiry Officer making out such grounds, as are admissible at law for recalling for cross-examination. It would be entirely in the discretion of the Inquiry Officer to consider such request and decide the same.
Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
