PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the entire departmental proceeding initiated vide charge sheet dated 17.12.2015 on the ground that the alleged charges are analogous and similar to charges levelled against the petitioner in the pending criminal case and for issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to stay the departmental proceedings based on similar and analogous facts till the conclusion of the criminal case.
(2.) The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner was posted as a Medium Enterprise Relationship Manager, (MERM) at Commercial Branch, Bokaro for the period from 12.06.2006 to 08.12.2009. On 28.07.2014, on the basis of the complaint lodged to the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing (EWO), CBI, Ranchi on the allegation of criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating in the matter of obtaining Cash credit limit and term loans of various accounts on the basis of false and fabricated documents. Five F.I.Rs., namely, R.C 8(S)/14, R.C 9(S)/14, R.C 10 (S)/14, R.C 11(S)/14, R.C 12(S)/14 have been registered by CBI for the offence under Sections 120 B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471, I.P.C. Finally, charge sheet was submitted in all the said five matters for the offences under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 486 and 471 of the I.P.C. and Sections 12 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein, the petitioner has been shown as an accused. The Respondent -Bank decided to initiate a Departmental proceeding against the petitioner for imposing major penalty in terms of Rule 68 (1) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules. In pursuance to such departmental proceeding, the petitioner was served with a charge dated 17.12.2015, issued by the disciplinary authority. As per the Articles of Charge, while the petitioner was posted as MERM at the Commercial Branch, Bokaro (now SME, Bokaro steel city) during the period 12.06.2006 to 08.12.2009, petitioner failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner highly prejudicial to the Bank's interest in violation of Rule 50 (4) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules and these are the allegations on which the charge sheet has been submitted as is evident from Annexure -6 to the writ application. In pursuance to the aforesaid charge, the petitioner submitted his reply on 25.01.2016 denying the charges. Therefore, thereafter, the Enquiry officer and the Presenting Officer have been appointed by the Respondent -Bank and the matter was posted on 25.02.2016, in which the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and list of prosecution documents have been given to the petitioner and the proceeding has been adjourned to 03.03.2016. It is averred in the writ application that on 17.03.2016, since the petitioner could not get permission from the controlling officer, request was made to adjourn the case, but the petitioner was informed that if the petitioner does not participate in the departmental proceedings, then the proceedings shall be conducted ex parte as is evident from Annexure -11 to the writ application. Again the departmental proceeding has been adjourned to 07.04.2016. Further, it has been adjourned to 26.04.2016.
(3.) Heard Ms. Shruti Shrestha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent -Bank.;