Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of a writ/direction in the nature of mandamus for quashing/setting aside the order dated 11.07.1987 (Annexure -8), passed by the respondents pertaining to dismissal from services and for direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his original post with all consequential benefits including back wages/emoluments with interest @ 12 per cent since the date of dismissal.
(2.) The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk -cum -Cashier in the year 1980 in the State Bank of India. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his authority without any blemish. While continuing, as such, vide letter dated 24.05.1984 show cause was issued to the petitioner in respect of Saving Bank Account No. 22/12982 in the name of Shri Pradeep Kumar on the allegation that some irregularity has been made in the payment register by not entering the payment of Rs. 1,600/ - on the captioned account, which was passed vide Scroll No. B -10 and the further allegation is that the said transaction has been entered and initialed in the concerned passbook and posted in ledger by the petitioner without any authority or justification whatsoever. In pursuance to the said show -cause, the petitioner submitted his reply explaining his position by denying all the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension and the departmental enquiry was initiated and a memo of charge was issued against him. During the enquiry, witnesses were examined on behalf of the Respondent -Bank and the star witness, namely, Malay Bose, Saving Bank Account In -charge was not summoned during enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted his report finding the petitioner guilty. It has further been submitted in the writ application that along with departmental proceeding, F.I.R. was also lodged under Ss. 420/455/468 and 471 of the I.P.C. on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Branch Manager. In the criminal case also, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner. It is further averred in the writ application that Mr. Malay Bose, the key witness, who was not examined in the departmental enquiry, was examined in the criminal trial, who categorically denied the charges against the petitioner. On the basis of the same set of witnesses and on the same charge, the petitioner has been found guilty in the departmental enquiry and he was dismissed from services, though, on the same set of charges, the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned trial court. Soon after acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, the petitioner submitted representation for allowing him to join the service but the petitioner has been informed by the Departmental Disciplinary Authority vide a communication that the departmental proceeding and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority will not be affected in any way by the judgment pronounced in the criminal case, as is evident from Annexure -14 to the writ application. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent -Bank repelling the contentions made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been inter alia, submitted that any acquittal in criminal case on the ground of lack of evidence or otherwise also will have no effect in the departmental proceeding, since the charges are well -proved against the petitioner and more so in the departmental proceeding, the charges were more and different. Criminal case was lodged against charge No. 1 with regard to account of Pradeep Kumar but in the departmental proceeding, the charge were different and more, so it is a well settled principle of law that acquittal in criminal case has no effect in the departmental case. In the criminal case charges are proved by the standard of proof beyond the reasonable doubt while in the departmental proceedings, the standard of proof for providing the charge is preponderance of probabilities.;