Tripura State Co-Operative Bank Ltd vs Sukumar Das And Ors

Sanjay Karol, CJ

In relation to an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 468/471/477/380/420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC), the accused, respondent No.1 herein, a Government employee, stood acquitted by the trial Court. Considering the departmental inquiry and the charges framed against the said employee to be on the same set of facts and same set of evidence, the learned Single Judge has quashed the departmental proceedings by also holding the order of suspension of the said employee to have been revoked on the date of his superannuation. Correctness of such findings are subject matter of the present appeal.

It is not in dispute that proceedings against the delinquent employee namely, Sukumar Das, respondent No.1 herein, were initiated both as disciplinary proceedings as also under the criminal procedure. The allegation being that the accused Sukumar Das used a false deposit challan of `1,60,000 (rupees one lakh sixty thousand) and dishonestly cheated the complainant/appellant, i.e. Tripura State Co-operative Bank Limited (TSCB) by inducing to deliver the said amount to him.

The matter having come to the notice of the authorities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated vide a memo dated 27.05.2002, so also FIR registered.

Vide judgment dated 04.02.2009, the trial Court acquitted the accused and such finding of acquittal undoubtedly has attained finality. The learned Single Judge quashed the proceedings by applying the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & others, (2006) 5 SCC 446 (2 Judge Bench) and Deputy Inspector General of Police vs. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 (2 Judge Bench).

In our considered view, the learned Single Judge misinterpreted and misapplied the law to the attending facts and circumstances. In the instant case, the acquittal was not for the reason that the accused stood falsely implicated or that no case against the accused was made out. It was not a case of an honorable acquittal. The accused stood acquitted by getting benefit of doubt. In this view of the matter, reliance upon G.M. Tank (supra) was totally misconceived.

In fact, the Apex Court as late as 16.09.2019, in Civil Appeal No.7279 of 2019 titled as, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by Managing Director (Admn. And HR) vs. Sri C. Nagaraju & another, has, inter alia, held as under:

"9. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising the power to conduct departmental proceedings in accordance with the rules and regulations. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. [Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Haldia, (2005) 7 SCC 764] In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the Respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether the offences registered against him under the PC Act are established, and if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of inquiry and the rules governing inquiry and trial in both the cases are significantly distinct and different. [State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417]

*** *** *** ***

Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondent No.1, we are of the view that interference with the order of dismissal by the High Court was unwarranted. It is settled law that the acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent officer. The Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court if the evidence that is produced in the Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced during the criminal trial. The object of a Departmental Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be continued in service. The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not strictly based on the rules of evidence. The order of dismissal which is based on the evidence before the Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings, which is different from the evidence available to the Criminal Court, is justified and needed no interference by the High Court."

In this view of the matter, the present appeal needs to be allowed. Ordered accordingly.

As such, the judgment and order dated 04.05.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.85 of 2012, titled as Sri Sukumar Das vs. The Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. & others, is set aside with the writ petition dismissed.

Since the petitioner, respondent No.1 herein, has already superannuated, it is directed that disciplinary proceedings shall stand expedited and be taken to its logical end, positively within a period of 9(nine) months from today.

Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed in view of above terms.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.