ALLAHABAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ALLAHABADversusVIDHYA VARIDH MISHRA

      \ l·




             ALLAHABAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE                          A
                  BANK LTD., ALLAHABAD
                            v.
                  VIDHYA VARIDH MISHRA

                         AUGUST 11, 2004
                                                                      B
             [S.N. VARIAVA AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.]

     Service Law :

      Termination of service-Charges against employee-Disciplinary
proceedings and criminal trial-In disciplinary proceeding minor punish- C
ment by Authority-Minor punishment not approved and subsequently
services terminated-Acquittal by Criminal Court-Application for recon-
sideration of termination rejected by Authority-Writ petition-Termina-
tion order not challenged-Courts below directed reinstatement on the
ground that double punishment awarded-On appeal, held: Reinstatement D
not correct as there was no double punishment as minor punishment was
not awarded-Also because termination order not challenged-Discipli-
nary Authority may arrive at a conclusion different from that of criminal
Court.

      Respondent was employed with appellant-Bank. After a discipli- E
nary enquiry he was found guilty of embezzlement and enquiry officer
terminated his services and ordered for recovery of money. Adminis-
trative Committee proposed punishment of withholding two annual
increments and recording adverse entries in character roll. However,
the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, opined to terminate his services p
in view of the gravity of the charges. Hence, his services were
terminated. In criminal trial for the offence, respondent was convicted
                                                                    I
by trial court but was exonerated of the charges by appellate Court.
After being exonerated, he filed application to the Bank to reconsider
the order of termination, but the same was rejected. He filed Writ G
Petition in High Court but therein did not challenge the order of
termination. High Court allowed the petition holding that he was
subjected to double punishment for the same offence, i.e., withholding
of two annul increments and adverse entry in character roll and also
termination of services. The order was upheld by Division Bench of
High Court. Hence the present appeal.                                   H
                                 479
    480               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A        Appellant contended that termination was on the basis of convic-
    tion and that the matter be remitted to High Court to give opportunity
    to respondent to amend the writ petition to show that the order of
    termination was on the basis of conviction in criminal trial.

B         Allowing the appeal, the Court

         HELD : I. There was no double punishment. The earlier proposal
    to impose minor punishment had not been approved by the Registrar.
    Therefore, the minor punishment had not been awarded or imposed.
    The participation of the respondent in the embezzlement having been
c   proved, in a disciplinary inquiry, the proper punishment was termi-
    nation of services. Moreover, the order of termination had not been
    challenged in the Writ Petition. There being no challenge to that
    Order, reinstatement could not have been directed. [482-E-F)

D        2.1. The termination was pursuant to a disciplinary inquiry. In a
    disciplinary inquiry a conclusion different from that arrived at by a
    criminal court, may be arrived at. The strict burden of proof required
    to establish guilty in a criminal court, is not required in disciplinary
    proceeding. The respondent had not claimed that the disciplinary
E   proceedings were not conducted fairly. As the termination was based on
    findings of the Disciplinary Committee, the fact that the Appellate Court
    exonerated the respondent, was of no consequence. (482-H; 483-A-B)

         2.2. It is clear that the order of termination was based on the
    findings given in the disciplinary proceedings. On these findings, it
F   cannot be said that the order of termination was not correct and hence
    the matter cannot be remitted back to High Court. (483-C; 483-B)

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5179 of
    2004.
G
        From the Judgment and Order dated 20.7.2001 of the Allahabad High
    Court in S.A. No. 214 of 1998.

          Amrendra Sharan, D.K. Goswami and Mukesh K. Giri for the
H Appellant.
    ALLAHABAD DJSIT. CO-OP. BANK LTD. v. V.V. MISHRA [VARIAVA, J.] 481

    M.N. Rao, Satya Mitra Garg and Mrs. Manju Aggarwal for the A
Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     S.N. V ARIA VA, J. : Leave granted.
                                                                             B
     Heard parties.

     This appeai is against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated
20th July, 2001.

     Briefly stated the facts are as follows.                                c
      The Respondent was working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Appel-
lant-Bank. In October 1978, he was suspended in connection with
embezzlement of Rs. 15,000. A disciplinary inquiry was held against the
Respondent. In the disciplinary inquiry, the Respondent was found to have D
had a hand in the embezzlement. The Inquiry Officer proposed punishment
of termination of services and recovery of money.

     It appears that the Administrative Committee of the Bank decided to
take a lenient view and proposed to impose a punishment of withholding
two annual increments and recording adverse entries in the character roll. E
When this proposal was sent to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies,' the
Registrar opined that the charges were serious and that they had been held
proved in the disciplinary inquiry. It was opined that on these charges
termination should take place. The Registrar did not, therefore, approve
the minor punishment proposed to be imposed on the Respondent. The F
Bank, thus, decided to dismiss the Respondent. By a letter dated 6th April
1989, the services of the Respondent were terminated.

     It° must be mentioned that the Respondent was also charge-sheeted
and faced a criminal trial. The Trial Court had found the Respondent guilty G
and had convicted him. However, subsequent to 6th April, 1989, the
Appellate Court exonerated the Respondent on the ground that he was
mereiy negligent in his duties and that no criminal offence had been made
out.

     After the Appellate Court exonerated the Respondent, he made an H
    482                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A application to the Appellant-Bank to reconsider the order of termination.
    This application was rejected on 20th December, 1991.

          The Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court
    challenging the Order dated 20th December, 1991. In this Writ Petition,
B   there was no challenge to the order of termination dated 6th April, 1989.

         A Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed the Writ Petition
    and directed reinstatement. It was held that for this very act the Respondent
    had already been awarded punishment of withholding two annual incre-
    ments and an adverse entry in the character roll. It was held that for the
C   same offence he could not again be subjected to double punishment.

         The Appeal filed by the Appellant has been dismissed by the Division
    Bench by the impugned judgment. It was pointed out to the Division
    Bench that there was no double punishment as the earlier proposal had not
D · been approve:! by the Registrar. The Division Bench holds that as the Bank
    had itself thought it fit to impose only a minor punishment, they could not
    now terminate the services of the Respondent.

          We have heard counsel for the parties. In our view, the Single Judge
    has gone completely wrong. There was no double punishment. The earlier
E   proposal to impose minor punishment had not been approved by the
    Registrar. Therefore, the minor punishment had not been awarded or
    imposed. In our view, the Division Bench has clearly erred. The participation
    of the Respondent in the embezzlement having been proved, in a disciplinary
    inquiry, the proper punishment was termination of services. More impor-
F   tantly, both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench
    completely overlooked the fact that the termination was by the Order dated
    6th April, 1989. This Order had not been challenged in the Writ Petition.
    There being no challenge to that Order, reinstatement could not have been
    directed.

G         Mr. Rao submitted that the Respondent had been exonerated by the
    Criminal Court. He submitted that the termination was only on the basis
    of his conviction. He submitted that as his conviction is set aside, the
    Courts below were right in reinstating the Respondent. We are unable to
    accede to this submission. The termination was pursuant to a disciplinary
H   inquiry. It is settled law that in a disciplinary inquiry a conclusion different
     ALLAHABAD DISTT. CO-OP. BANK LTD. v. V.V. MISHRA [VARIAVA, J.) 483

 from that arrived at by a Criminal Court, may be arrived at. The strict A
·burden of proof required to establish guilt in a Criminal Court is not
 required in disciplinary proceeding. The Respondent had not claimed that
 the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted fairly. As the termination
 was based on findings of the Disciplinary Committee, the fact that the
 Appellate Court exonerated the Respondent was of no consequence.           B
      Mr. Rao next submitted that the matter should be remitted back to
the High Court with an opportunity to the Respondent to amend his Writ
Petition and to show to the Court that the order of termination was based
on the Respondent being convicted by the Criminal Court. We are unable
to accede to this request also. We have gone through all the documents. C
It is clear that the order of termination was based on the findings given
in the disciplinary proceedings. On these findings, it cannot be said that
the order of termination was not correct.

     Under these circumstances, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned D
Order as well as the Order of the learned Single Judge are set aside. The
Writ Petition filed by the Respondent stands dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.

K.K.T.                                                   Appeal allowed.