JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, an employee desires that this Court should thwart the departmental proceeding commenced against him by his employer.
(2.)THE petitioner was posted as a Manager of the Central Bank of India in its branch at Ganhasand, Sahjanwa, district Gorakhpur during the year 1972-73. For the sake of brevity the Central Bank of India shall hereinafter be referred to as the Bank. The petitioner along with Sarvashri Shankar Dayal Tripathi, Daya Shanker Tripathi and Ram Nain Rai, was prosecuted for having committed offences under Sections 120b, 419, 420, 468, 471 of the Penal Code and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act Shanker Dayal Tripathi and Daya Shankar Tripathi are real brothers. The prosecution case was that the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other aforementioned accused persons with the object to obtain pecuniary advantages by corrupt and illegal means and also by abusing his official position as a public servant and to cheat the Bank. Ram Nain Rai, it appears, made a confession and his case was separated from the other accused. The Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, on 24th January, 1983, acquitted the petitioner and convicted the remaining accused. The Bank, on 18th July, 1984, initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner by issuing a charge-sheet to him. According to the petitioner, he was given a clean and honourable acquittal by the Court It is also the case of the petitioner that the Bank has initiated departmental proceedings against him on charges identical to those for which his prosecution in a regular Court of law remained unsuccessful. This, according to the petitioner, tantamounts to an abuse of the power vested in the Bank. He has, therefore, made a prayer in this Court that the departmental proceedings initiated againt him may be quashed and a suitable order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued to the Bank not to continue the departmental proceedings.
(3.)IN a nutshell the prosecution case against the petitioner was that in furtherance of the conspiracy the petitioner in his capacity as the Manager of the Bank sanctioned and paid to 6 different persons a total sum of Rs. 24,900/- without conducting ore and post verifications and ascertaining the com fides of the borrowers and the guarantors. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses in support of its case. The defence taken by the petitioner was that he had advanced loans in good faith after considering the; transactions to be genuine. He did not enter into any conspiracy. While dealing with the case of the petitioner the learned Special Judge observed:. . . The point for consideration here is whether P. H. Tripathi was also involved in the conspiracy and also whether he had knowledge that the bank was being cheated in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. . . . The point for consideration is whether the intention of the accused was criminal or he was simply negligent in his duties. . . . Thereafter the Judge observed:. . . The Manager thinking that the pre-inspection has been done and all the papers are complete sanctioned the loan. The evidence of Akhila Nand Singh clearly goes to establish that it was his duty to verify the contents of the application and he always recommended it after verification The Manager P. H. Tripathi, did not verify it again and also did not conduct post inspection. It can at the most be a negligence and criminal intention cannot be inferred from these circumstances. Proceeding further, the Judge observed:. . . The Manager did not conduct post-verification whether the engine has been installed or not can at the most only be a negligence on his part and this only can not lead to the conclusion that the accused was also a conspirator along with the other accused persons. The Judge concluded: I have thoroughly considered the evidence against present accused and have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charge against this accused.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.