Disciplinary Authority Cannot Rely On Documents Furnished In Parallel Criminal Proceedings Against Accused-Employee: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has made it clear that a disciplinary authority cannot rely on extraneous documents, such as those furnished during parallel criminal proceedings against the accused-employee, for the purpose of departmental enquiry.Justice PB Bajanthri observed,"Extraneous document cannot be taken into consideration by the enquiry authority or disciplinary authority. The decision of disciplinary authority in relying on statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is extraneous and it is not in terms of Regulation 7 of Regulations, 1976."The bench was referring to Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The Petitioner, employed as a Manager in the Bank's branch office at Bokaro, was accused of leaking the question papers of CBSC Pre-Medical Entrance Test for the year 2003.Based on the aforesaid allegations, he was subjected to parallel proceedings, disciplinary and criminal.The Petitioner requested the disciplinary authority to defer the departmental enquiry till criminal case is concluded. This request was denied and the authority went on to impose penalty of dismissal from service, relying on statements furnished under Section 164 of CrPC during the criminal trial.In this backdrop the High Court observed that Petitioner's contention so far as consideration of extraneous documents is concerned is accepted. However, contention for stalling disciplinary proceedings cannot be accepted. It observed,"Any parallel proceedings launched by an employer neither disciplinary proceedings nor criminal proceedings can be stalled for the reasons that disciplinary proceedings have been launched against an employee/ officer with reference to alleged misconduct and violation of Conduct Rules. In so far criminal proceedings is concerned, it is relating to an offence under Indian Penal Code or any other special law." The Court relied on a decision of constitution Bench in the case of State of Mysore Vs. K. Manche Gowda, AIR 1964 SC 506 where it was held that extraneous document cannot be taken into consideration by the enquiry authority or disciplinary authority. In view of the above, the Court was of opinion that the Petitioner has made out a prima facie case so as to interfere with the impugned order. Court also noted that during pendency of the present petition, petitioner is stated to have cross the age of retirement. Therefore, question of reinstating him is not warranted. Case Title: Ajay Kumar Singh Versus Canara Bank and Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Pat) 23 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Disciplinary Authority Cannot Rely On Documents Furnished In Parallel Criminal Proceedings Against Accused-Employee: Patna High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags