AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These Special Leave Petitions are preferred by an employee of the Bank who was suspended pending enquiry into certain grave charges as far back as 1987. The said suspension was ordered pending a criminal case registered by the CBI. The High Court has quashed the order of suspension, under the impugned order, on the ground that keeping him under suspension for a period more than eight years is oppressive and an instance of unreasonable exercise of power. While doing so, the High Court has made the following observation which is complained of by the employee herein :
We, however, grant liberty to the respondent Bank and its authorities to hold, if deemed desirable, disciplinary enquiry against the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations.
We have heard Sri K. R. Nagaraja, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri Raj Birbal, learned counsel for the Bank. (It is brought to our notice that the Bank itself had filed a SLP against this very order insofar as it quashed the order of suspension pending enquiry but that Speical Leave Petition was dismissed with an observation.) So far as the reason for not holding the disciplinary enquiry for all these nine years is concerned, the learned counsel for the Bank slates that in view of the instructions contained in the Manual issued by the Central Vigilance Commission (Vigilance Manual of the Central Vigilance Commission) to the effect that where the C. B. I. is in charge of a criminal case, no disciplinary proceedings shall be taken on the same charges the Bank has not taken any disciplinary action against the employee.
We do not propose to make any pronouncement upon the justicibility of the reason for which the Bank has not taken disciplinary action against the employee all these years. The fact remains that for nine years, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated so far. If the Bank has been awaiting the conclusion of the Criminal case all these years, it is its own affair. All we say is that there was no occasion for granting any '' ''liberty'''' to it to proceed with disciplinary enquiry. No such'' ''liberty" was necessary to be granted. If the Bank can take these proceedings according to law, they may. They did not require the grant of any "liberty" by the Court.
We may also note that according to the employee, the C. B. I. has not yet filed the charge-sheet in the criminal case. He has also submitted that in a civil suit filed against the Bank, the Bank has taken a stand that its employees are in no way responsible. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the Bank is that the charge-sheet was filed by the C. B. I. as far back as 1980. We must say that whichever version is true, the delay is palpable.
The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly.