A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - (1.) The short question involved in this appeal is: whether the High Court was justified in directing stay of the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the appellant -Bank against the respondent until the closure of recording of prosecution evidence in the criminal case instituted against the respondent, based on the same facts?
(2.) The respondent was appointed in the clerical cadre of the appellant -Bank. At the relevant time, she was working as an Allegedly, some time on 29 th May 2006, the Assistant (Clearing). respondent by her acts of commission and omission caused loss to the Bank in the sum of Rs. 44,40,819/ - by granting credit to one Laxman Parsad Ratre (who was an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant). The respondent herself introduced Laxman Parsad Ratre to open an On 7 th November 2006, the account in the appellant Bank. respondent was placed under suspension for indulging in gross irregularities and misconduct including of misplacing the clearing instruments relating to various customers. The respondent vide letter dated 8th November 2006, not only admitted her misdeeds but assured the Chief Manager of returning the amount commensurate to the financial loss caused to the Bank because of her lapses at the earliest, failing which suitable action can proceed against her. The said communication reads thus: JUDGEMENT_19_LAWS(SC)9_2016.jpg
(3.) Nevertheless, a FIR was lodged in connection with the said irregularities and misdeeds committed by the respondent bearing FIR No.1043/2006, for offences punishable under Sections 409, 34 of the IPC by appellant -Bank. Laxman Parsad Ratre has also been named as an accused in the said FIR. It is alleged in the FIR that Laxman Parsad Ratre who had account in State Bank of India issued two cheques in favour of Tanishk Securities both valued Rs.6,50,000/ -, knowing that he did not have balance in his account. Those cheques were deposited by Tanishk Securities in their U.T.I. Branch Bhilai for clearance. U.T.I. Branch dispatched those cheques to State Bank of India at Durg, Bhilai. The respondent was posted in that Branch at the relevant time, who in connivance with the co -accused dispatched those cheques to State Bank of India, Malviya Nagar Branch even though Laxman Parsad Ratre did not have account in that Branch. The cheques were returned by that Branch. The respondent intentionally did not immediately return those cheques to U.T.I. Branch at Bhilai. Resultantly, U.T.I. Branch at Bhilai as per the settled practice assumed that the cheques have been cleared and released the payment to Tanishk Securities, by endorsing payment in the name of State Bank of India. Thereby causing a loss of Rs. 13 lakhs to State Bank of India. That was revealed only on 28.10.2006 during reconciliation of accounts of the two Banks. Further, the respondent herself had introduced Laxman Parsad Ratre for opening an account in the appellant -Bank. She has admitted her lapse in the communication sent by her to the Chief Manager of the appellant -Bank dated 8th November, 2006. In a written admission given on 6th November, 2006 Laxman Parsad Ratre mentioned that he was involved in a criminal activity in connivance with the respondent. The FIR has been registered for offence of possible loss of Rs. 29,53,262/ -.;