Madras High Court
V.Valmeeki vs The Chief Manager / Disciplinary ... on 10 November, 2021
W.A.No.1469 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 10.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.No.1469 of 2016
V.Valmeeki ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Chief Manager / Disciplinary Authority,
Central Bank of India, C.C.P.C.,
14 & 15, Variety Hall Road,
Coimbatore.
2.The Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Post Box No.13, Narasingpur Road,
Chitnavis Ganj, Chhindwara – 480 002,
Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 26.03.2015 in W.P.No.30157 of 2013 dismissing the Writ
Petition.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondent : Mr.T.S.Anandh
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
Page 1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1469 of 2016
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
Challenging the order passed in W.P.No.30157 of 2013, the Writ
Petitioner has filed the above Writ Appeal.
2.The appellant filed the Writ Petition to issue writ of certiorarified
mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with
the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 23.05.2012 and to
quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to reinstate
the petitioner into service and grant him all consequential service and
monetary benefits.
3.It is the case of the appellant that he was initially recruited as a
Clerk in Central Bank of India and later promoted to the post of Assistant
Manager. While he was functioning as Assistant Manager, a criminal
case was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on
25.05.2009, alleging that he had demanded illegal gratification from a
Page 2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1469 of 2016
customer. The 2nd respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings by
issuing a charge memo dated 21.12.2009. The first charge relates to
demanding bribe from the customer. The second charge relates to the
arrest of the petitioner by the CBI. In the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry
Officer found that the charges framed against the appellant were not
proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the said
findings and imposed punishment by reducing his pay for a period of
three years with cumulative effect. The appellant has not challenged the
said order and the same has become final. In the criminal case initiated
against the appellant, the II Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, by his
judgment dated 09.12.2011 convicted him. Pursuant to the conviction,
the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 12.05.2012 to show cause as to
why he should not be dismissed from service on account of his
conviction by a Criminal Court. The appellant submitted his explanation
to the show cause notice and the Disciplinary Authority passed an order
dated 23.05.2012 dismissing the appellant from service. Challenging the
order dated 23.05.2012, the appellant has filed the Writ Petition. The
only contention of the appellant was that imposition of punishment by
Page 3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1469 of 2016
the 1st respondent would amount to double jeopardy, hence, the same is
liable to be set aside. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration
the case of both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition, finding that the
appellant was not punished earlier on account of his involvement either
in a criminal case or conviction by Criminal Court. The second charge
framed by the 2nd respondent earlier relates to the arrest of the appellant
and publication of the said event in a Newspaper. Further, the subsequent
proceedings was initiated solely on account of the conviction of the
petitioner by the Criminal Court. The learned Single Judge also observed
that the subsequent disciplinary proceedings has nothing to do with the
earlier proceedings initiated by charge memo dated 21.12.2009 and the
same was an independent charge consequent to the conviction of the
appellant by the Criminal Court.
4.As per the provisions of Section 10 (1) (b)(i) of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949, the Banks shall not employ persons who are
convicted by Criminal Court for an offence involving moral turpitude. It
is not in dispute that the appellant was convicted by the Criminal Court
Page 4/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1469 of 2016
on account of his involvement in a corruption case and was dismissed
from service by the 1st respondent. As per the provisions of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949, the 1st respondent passed an order dated
10.05.2012 initiating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant on
account of his conviction by the Criminal Court. The appellant was also
issued with a show cause notice dated 12.05.2012 and the Disciplinary
Authority ultimately passed an order of dismissal.
5.As already stated, Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act,
1949, prohibits the Banks from employing persons who are adjudicated
insolvent or convicted by a Criminal Court for an offence involving
moral turpitude. There cannot be any dispute that the conviction for an
offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act would constitute a
punishment for moral turpitude.
6.Mr.Anandh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is
liable to be rejected for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Page 5/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1469 of 2016
India in the judgment reported in (2020) 12 Supreme Court Cases 144
[Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mukesh Poonamchand
Shah] has clearly held that when a major penalty was proposed to be
imposed on the ground of the conduct of the employee which had led to
conviction on a criminal charge, the disciplinary action initiated by the
Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of reduction of a pay shall
not be construed as double jeopardy. Paragraph-17 of the judgment reads
as follows:
“...
17.In State of Haryana v Balwant Singh [(2003) 3
SCC 362 : 2003 SCC (L & S) 279], the respondent, who was
an employee of a public transport corporation, caused a
death as a result of his rash and negligent driving. The
Corporation had to suffer an award of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal. Following the disciplinary enquiry, the
employee was subjected to a punishment of a reduction of
pay to the minimum of the time scale of a driver for four
years. On the conviction of the employee for offences under
Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Penal Code, his
services were terminated. On this set of facts, a two-Judge
Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Shivaraj
V.Patil, J., rejected the argument based on the principle of
Page 6/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1469 of 2016
double jeopardy and held:
“7… there was no question of the respondent
suffering a double jeopardy. The aid of Article 20(2)
of the Constitution of India was wrongly taken. Article
20(2) of the Constitution of India does not get attracted
to the facts of the present case.”
The Court held that when a major penalty was proposed to
be imposed on the ground of the conduct of the employee
which had led to conviction on a criminal charge, it was not
necessary to take recourse of the provisions of Rules 7(1)
and (2) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1987 relating to the convening of an inquiry
in which a reasonable opportunity of showing cause would
have to be given.”
7.The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited
supra squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
8.Following the said ratio, we do not find any ground to interfere
with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However,
since the second proceedings was initiated only on account of the
Page 7/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1469 of 2016
conviction of the appellant by a Criminal Court, the subsequent acquittal
by the Appellate Court would come to his rescue. Since the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh is yet to consider the appeal, it is always open to the
respondents to recall the order of punishment of dismissal in case the
appellant is acquitted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. No costs.
Index : Yes/No [M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
va 10.11.2021
To
1.The Chief Manager / Disciplinary Authority,
Central Bank of India, C.C.P.C.,
14 & 15, Variety Hall Road,
Coimbatore.
2.The Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Post Box No.13, Narasingpur Road,
Chitnavis Ganj, Chhindwara – 480 002,
Madhya Pradesh.
Page 8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1469 of 2016
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
va
W.A.No.1469 of 2016
10.11.2021
Page 9/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
