Delhi High Court
Satish Chaudhary vs Bank Of Baroda And Anr. on 15 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 15, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 1370/2013
SATISH CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shankar Raju and Mr.Nilansh
Gaur, Advocates
Versus
BANK OF BARODA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhupinder Singh Chauhan,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
ORAL
1. Petitioner was Head Cashier in Currency Chest of respondent-Bank
when FIR for offence of cheating, forgery etc was registered against him
in March, 2003 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Pursuant to
the departmental proceedings initiated against petitioner, he has been
dismissed from service vide order of 2nd December, 2005 against which
an appeal was preferred by petitioner and the said appeal stands
dismissed vide order of 12th July, 2006. Petitioner's Representation also
stands dismissed vide order of 13th October, 2012 (Annexure P-13).
2. The challenge to impugned dismissal order by petitioner's counsel
is on the ground that petitioner was dismissed from service but lateron, he
has been acquitted in the criminal case and so, in view of Supreme
Court's decision in S. Bhaskar Reddy & Anr. Vs. Superintendent of Police
& Anr. (2015) 2 SCC 365, the disciplinary authority is required to
reconsider the order of dismissal in view of acquittal by the Criminal
Court, when charges in both the proceedings are more or less similar.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent-Bank, reliance has been
placed upon Supreme Court's decision in Deputy Inspector General of
Police & Anr. Vs. S. Samuthiram 2012 AIR (SCW) 6484, wherein it has
been held that mere acquittal of an employee by a criminal court has no
impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by a department. Learned
counsel for respondent-Bank raises the jurisdictional issue by submitting
that petitioner is a workman and he ought to be relegated to avail of the
remedies by invoking provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. It is a matter of record that when this petition was admitted,
respondent- Bank was duly represented. That was the stage to relegate
petitioner to avail of alternate remedy. In any case, petitioner was
drawing salary of more than `10,000/- p.m. and was working in
Supervisory capacity and so, it cannot be said that petitioner comes
within the definition of a workman. In this view of the matter, it is held
that petitioner cannot be relegated to avail of the remedies under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
material on record and the decisions cited, I find that in view of Supreme
Court's decision in S. Bhaskar Reddy (Supra), the disciplinary authority
is under legal obligation to reconsider the penalty of dismissal from
service in view of petitioner's acquittal by the Criminal Court, as the
charges in both these proceedings are said to be identical. This aspect is
required to be looked into by the disciplinary authority of respondent-
Bank.
6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this petition is disposed
of with permission to petitioner to make a concise Representation to
respondent-bank within a period of two weeks. If such a Representation is
received by respondent-Bank, then it be considered by the disciplinary
authority in light of Supreme Court's decision in S. Bhaskar Reddy
(Supra) and in case, it still maintains the penalty of dismissal, then
reasons for doing so be spelt out. The fate of Representation be made
known to petitioner within twelve weeks, so that petitioner may avail of
the remedies, as available in law, if need be. It is made clear that if
permissible, petitioner may avail of the remedies before the Appellate
Authority.
7. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
Dasti.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 15, 2018
r
