Case Details State Bank of India vs P. Zadenga

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

3 October 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 2518 of 2012

Result

Allowed

Bench

Hrishikesh Roy, Sanjay Karol

Citation

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 740 : 2023 INSC 868

Issue for consideration

Whether clause 4 of the Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) dated 10th April 2002 create a bar on departmental proceedings continuing when the person subjected thereto is being tried before a criminal court for offences of the same origin; and whether acquittal in some of the connected proceedings entail a benefit in the surviving proceedings, inuring a right upon the delinquent employee of automatic discharge in disciplinary proceedings.

Headnote

Service Law – Departmental proceedings pending criminal trial arising from the same transactions, if to be stayed – Acquittal in one of the proceedings if entails an acquittal in the other: Held: Clause 4 of the MoS does not envisage a complete standstill of departmental proceedings as a result of the pendency of criminal proceedings – It may be desirable or, in certain circumstances, advisable for disciplinary proceedings to be stayed when criminal proceedings are ongoing however, stay is not "a matter of course" and is only to be given after consideration of all factors, for and against – Departmental proceedings cannot be unduly and unjustly delayed – It is only after the completion of the entire process of disciplinary proceedings that the respondent relying upon clause 4 of the MoS filed writ petition challenging the action, which was a belated attempt only to forestall its implementation – Further, completion of trial must be construed as completion “within the reasonable time frame” and the clause cannot come to the aid of the employee “more so”, for “prolongation on the trial” – In the instant case, the completion of the trial concerning the crime registered in the year 1996 is nowhere nearing completion – On facts, no plea of MoS was ever taken – No specific plea of postponement of disciplinary proceedings awaiting conclusion of a criminal trial was made – Neither was it the case that the trial to which the respondent was subjected to begin within one year of the commission of the offence nor does the record speak to this effect – It is not mandatory to stay the disciplinary proceedings particularly when they were initiated after the prescribed period of one year – The restriction within clause 4 is not complete and is to be applied on facts – Furthermore, the nature of proceedings being wholly separate and distinct, acquittal in criminal proceedings does not entitle the delinquent employee for any benefit in the latter or automatic discharge in departmental proceedings and would also not tantamount to closure or culmination of proceedings in favour of the delinquent employee – Impugned judgment set aside – Respondent’s dismissal from service restored. [Paras 14.2, 15, 19, 22-24,

26 and 28-30]

Service Law – Simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings, principles to deal with – Discussed.

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. The instant lis presents two questions for consideration by this Court. They are(a) Does clause 4 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10 th April 2002 create a bar on departmental proceedings continuing when the person subjected thereto is being tried before a criminal court for offences of the same origin? (b) Does acquittal in some of the connected proceedings entail a benefit in the surviving proceedings? Further, inuring a right upon the delinquent employee of automatic discharge in disciplinary proceedings? This appeal

View Subscription Plans →