# Lakesh Mehta v. Sri S.K. Jha, A.G.M.-I, State Bank of Patiala and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 900
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-02-02
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5652 of 2006
- **Bench:** D.P. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lakesh-mehta-v-sri-s-k-jha-a-g-m-i-state-bank-of-patiala-and-others-40677
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Departmental proceeding and Criminal
proceeding for the same charges-going
on-petitioner being cashier-found guilty
of shortage of Rs.2,11,09,500/- criminal
proceeding for offence under section
120-B, 409, 13 (2) 13 (1) (C)(d) of
prevention of corruption Act-as well as
the
disciplinary
proceeding
with
allegations
about
not
following
prescribed procedure for maintenance of
cash chest-simultaneously going on-both
charges in both proceeding are quite
distinct
and
different
in
naturedisciplinary
proceeding
can
not
be
stayed.

Held: Para 5

A perusal of the departmental charge
sheet,
which
is
annexed
with
the
petition, shows that the charge leveled
against the petitioner in the domestic
enquiry is that he failed to perform his
duties effectively resulting in shortage of
cash inasmuch as he did not follow the
prescribed procedure for maintaining the
cash chest. Other charge relates to nonfiling and noting down the details of the
currency notes held in various bins in
separate register for tallying with the
currency
chest
register.
As
already
observed above, charge before Criminal
Court is dishonestly misappropriating the
money of the bank and using it to his
own benefit by making investments and
speculations in stock market. Both the
charges are entirely different and the
evidence to prove the two charges would
obviously be different.
Case law discussed:
1992 (82) FLR 627
2004 LLR-950
W.P. 36479 of 05 decided on 4.5.05

## Text

900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE D.P. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5652 of 2006

Lakesh Mehta

...Petitioner
Versus
Sri S.K. Jha, Asstt. General Manager-I, State
Bank of Patiala and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.C. Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Departmental proceeding and Criminal
proceeding for the same charges-going
on-petitioner being cashier-found guilty
of shortage of Rs.2,11,09,500/- criminal
proceeding for offence under section
120-B, 409, 13 (2) 13 (1) (C)(d) of
prevention of corruption Act-as well as
the
disciplinary
proceeding
with
allegations
about
not
following
prescribed procedure for maintenance of
cash chest-simultaneously going on-both
charges in both proceeding are quite
distinct
and
different
in
naturedisciplinary
proceeding
can
not
be
stayed.

Held: Para 5

A perusal of the departmental charge
sheet,
which
is
annexed
with
the
petition, shows that the charge leveled
against the petitioner in the domestic
enquiry is that he failed to perform his
duties effectively resulting in shortage of
cash inasmuch as he did not follow the
prescribed procedure for maintaining the
cash chest. Other charge relates to nonfiling and noting down the details of the
currency notes held in various bins in
separate register for tallying with the
currency
chest
register.
As
already
observed above, charge before Criminal
Court is dishonestly misappropriating the
money of the bank and using it to his
own benefit by making investments and
speculations in stock market. Both the
charges are entirely different and the
evidence to prove the two charges would
obviously be different.
Case law discussed:
1992 (82) FLR 627
2004 LLR-950
W.P. 36479 of 05 decided on 4.5.05

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.)

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

1. This petition is directed against
the
orders
dated
11.11.2005
and
17.1.2006. By the former order, the
departmental
proceedings
have
been
initiated against the petitioner and, by the
latter order, his request for stay of
proceedings has been rejected.

2. At the relevant time the petitioner
was Head Cashier of the State Bank of
Patiala at Ghaziabad and was also joint
custodian of the cash Chest, Bins etc.,
wherein the cash of the Reserve Bank of
India is kept. On 3.5.2005 the Currency
Verification Officer was deputed for
verifying the cash held in the chest as a
part
of
structured
cash
verification
exercise.
He
found
a
shortage
of
Rs.2,11,09,500/- in the cash chest. A First
Information Report was lodged against
the petitioner and another joint custodian
and a departmental enquiry was initiated
where
charges
were
framed
on
13.10.2005. After investigation in the
criminal case, a charge sheet under
sections 120-B, 409 IPC read with section
13 (2), 13 (1) (c) (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act was submitted to the
Court with the allegation that the
petitioner
dishonestly
misappropriated
2 All] Lakesh Mehta V. Sri S.K. Jha, A.G.M.-I, State Bank of Patiala and others
901
and utilized for his own use the aforesaid
cash of the Reserve Bank of India by
making investments and speculation in
stock market in his own name or in the
name of his family members or fictitious
persons from June, 2003 onwards through
M/s Citi Capital Services, Meerut.

3. The petitioner approached this
Court on a earlier occasion claiming that
both the charges were the same and so
was the evidence and therefore the
domestic enquiry should be stayed. A
Learned Single Judge of this Court vide
his order dated 16.12.2005 remitted the
matter to he Disciplinary Authority
stating that if the charges were same and
the evidence was same, the authority may
consider the stay of departmental enquiry.
By the second impugned order, the claim
has been rejected by the Disciplinary
Authority which is now also under
challenge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has again repeated the same argument that
since the charges before the Criminal
Court and Disciplinary Authority were
same, the disciplinary enquiry should be
stayed.

5. The Apex Court in the case of
Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat
Gold Mines Ltd. and another [1999 (82)
FLR 627 and State Bank of India and
others Vs. R.B. Sharma (2004 LLR
950) has held that the departmental
proceedings and the criminal case can go
on simultaneously except where the
departmental
proceedings
and
the
criminal case area based on the same set
of facts and evidence in both the
proceedings are common. A perusal of the
departmental charge sheet, which is
annexed with the petition, shows that the
charge leveled against the petitioner in the
domestic enquiry is that he failed to
perform his duties effectively resulting in
shortage of cash inasmuch as he did not
follow the prescribed procedure for
maintaining the cash chest. Other charge
relates to non-filing and noting down the
details of the currency notes held in
various bins in separate register for
tallying with the currency chest register.
As already observed above, charge before
Criminal
Court
is
dishonestly
misappropriating the money of the bank
and using it to his own benefit by making
investments and speculations in stock
market. Both the charges are entirely
different and the evidence to prove the
two charges would obviously be different.

6. The petitioner has then sought
parity on the basis of an interim order
passed in writ petition no.36479 of 2005
(Prafulla
Kumar
Vs.
Sri
S.T.
Mukkawar, Inquiring Authority and
others) dated 4.5.2005. No doubt, a
Division Bench of this Court has stayed
departmental
proceedings
due
to
pendency of the criminal case but the
petitioner has neither annexed copies of
the charge sheet of the criminal case nor
of
the
departmental
enquiry
to
demonstrate as to whether both the
charges
were
identical.
Thus,
this
contention of the petitioner can also not
be accepted.

7.

For
the
reasons
given
hereinabove, I do not find that this is a fit
case for interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Rejected.
----------
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.7.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44799 of 2000

Shashi Kant Tiwari

...Petitioner
Versus
Senior
Superintendent
of
Police,
Gorakhpur

...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Nandan
Sri Sanjiv Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Wasim Alam
Sri J.P. Singh
S.C.

U.P. Police Officer of the Subordinate
Ranks (Punishment and Appeal Rules,
1991-rule-8
(2)(b)-Petitioner
being
posted as Police constable-on picket
duty-by giving wrong information about
his ailment got leave on 28.8.98-caught
traveling on India Nepal border with
some foreign cell phone-on the basis of
preliminary inquiry-charge sheet served
on
13.5.2000-based
upon
which
straightway order of dismissal passed
dispense of enquiry procedure without
recording
any
reason-can
not
said
bonafide-order can not sustained.

Held: Para 11

So far the case in hand is concerned it is
not a case covered under Rule 8(2) ( c )
of the Rules and admittedly according to
own submission of the learned State
Counsel the matter is covered under Rule
8 (2)(b) of the Rules and thus this Court
is to be satisfied that the disciplinary
authority has recorded reasons in writing
to the effect that proceeding with the
normal procedure is not reasonably
practicable. On examination of the facts
as has come on record and averments as
contained in the counter affidavit this
Court is not satisfied that any reasons
has been recorded by the disciplinary
authority that holding of the normal
enquiry procedure as prescribed III law
is not reasonably practicable. To the
contrary the facts reveal that at all
stages petitioner co-operated with the
enquiry i.e. in respect to the preliminary
enquiry and even thereafter when the
charge sheet was given to him and thus
this Court is convinced that only in view
of nature of charge as submitted by Sri
Alam that it appears to be of some grave
nature the dispensation of the enquiry
can not be said to be justified. The power
to
dispense
the
normal
enquiry
procedure is not to depend on the whims
of the disciplinary authority. There is a
purpose behind conferring of the power
to dispense with the enquiry procedure
and thus that is to be exercised III a
bonafide manner. The reasons in writing
are to recorded and the reasons which
are to be indicated has to be in
consonance
with
the
grounds
so
mentioned in the Rule. Even if the
reasons have been recorded by the
concerned authority and if that cannot
be substantiated/justified from the facts
and circumstances and record then the
reasons even if is recorded can be safely
termed to be arbitrary and whimsical. As
indicated above, so far the case in hand
is concerned, in view of the fact that
evidence of several witnesses have been
collected during the preliminary enquiry
and
petitioner
promptly
moved
in
response
to
the
charge
sheet
by
submitting his reply, this Court has
already observed that dispensation of
the normal procedure of enquiry cannot
be said to be just and proper. To support
the aforesaid view, reliance as has been
placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner on the decision as has been
given in the case of Simarjeet Kaur
(Supra) can be safely referred. In the
decided case by this Court as referred
above on this short ground the impugned
action of the respondent was quashed
with the liberty to take fresh decision in