Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.:— The short question which requires determination is whether a departmental inquiry regarding certain charges can be held by a Bank against its employee if a criminal case relating to the said charges is pending in a court.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was working as the Officer Incharge of the Pay Office of the Punjab National Bank situated at Badli Ala Singh, district Patiala, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, in 1976. Loans for purchase of 79 buffaloes were sanctioned in favour of various persons. It is alleged by the petitioner that out of the said amount, 22 buffaloes were purchased and the remaining amount was misappropriated by Baldev Singn, Cashier, and some others. The Bank lodged a First Information Report on 3rd December, 1977, under sections 409/420/468/120-B, Indian Penal Code, and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corrup tion Act. Simultaneously, an inquiry was ordered against him by the Bank and respondent No. 3 was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. It is alleged that the inquiry cannot be held unless the criminal case is decided as the proceedings in the inquiry will prejudice his defence in the criminal case. The writ petition has been contested by respondent No. 2 who has admitted that the First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station. He pleads that as the investigation did not proceed ahead, a charge-sheet was given to the petitioner after an expiry of two years of the lodging of the First Information Report. He further pleads that the police has not put in any challan against the petitioner and his co-accused in the court as yet and, therefore, the inquiry can proceed further. He next avers that it is also not necessary that the employer should wait for decision of the criminal court before taking any action against an employee.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioner and the case is pending in the court. The petitioner has been released on bail. According to him, if the inquiry is held against the petitioner, he will be materially prejudiced in defence of the case which is of serious nature. He urges that, in the situation, the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer should be stayed.
4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the argument of the learned counsel and agree to the same. The question involved in the case is not res integra. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, A.I.R 1960 S.C 806, the following observations of the court may be read with advantage:—
“It is true that very often employers stay enquiries pending the decision of the criminal trial courts and that is fair; but we cannot say that principles of natural justice require that an employer must wait for the decision at least of the criminal trial court before taking action against an employee. In Shri Bimal Kanta Mukherjee v. Newsman's Printing Works, 1956 Lab. I.C 188, this was the view taken by the Labour Appella???e Tribunal. We may, however, add that if the case is of a grave nature or involves questions of fact or law, which are not simple, it would be advisable for the employer to await the decision of the trial court, so that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced”.
5. The above view was followed by that court in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, A.I.R 1965 S.C 155, wherein it was observed that it is desirable that if the incident giving rise to a charge framed against a workman in a domestic enquiry is being tried in a criminal court, the employer should stay the domestic enquiry pending the final disposal of the criminal case. It would be particularly appropriate to adopt such a course where the charge against the workman is of a grave character because in such a case, it would be unfair to compel the workman to disclose the defence which he may take before the criminal court Similar view was taken by a learned single Judge of this court in Civil Writ No. 1438 of 1967 (Bhagat Singh etc. v. The State of Haryana), decided on 7th February, 1969, and the proceedings in an inquiry were stayed by him.
6. It emerges from the above cases that if a delinquent is involved in a case of grave nature which involves complicated questions of fact aud law, it is proper for the employer to stay the proceedings in an inquiry. However, in simple cases, the inquiry may continue.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Moulindra Singh v. The Deputy Commissioner, 1973 Lab. I.C 1564, Rama Bahadoor v. Tungabhadra Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd., 1979 Lab I.C 972, and Jagdish Prasad Khatri v. State of Rajasthan, 1980 (1) S.L.R 225. All the cases referred to by him are distinguishable. In Moulindra Singh's case (supra), it was observed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court that it was difficult at that stage to consider whether the facts were of such a complexity that it would be better that the criminal case was disposed of first. Rama Bahadoor's case (supra) was a case of temporary injunction in a pending suit. The learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court held that the orders of the courts below did not call for interference in revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Jagdish Prasad Khatri's case (supra) accepted the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. (supra) and held that in case of grave nature or involving complicated questions of fact or law, it may be advisable to wait for the verdict of a Criminal Court. He, however, distinguished the case being adjudicated upon by him and held that that was neither of a grave nature nor that involved the questions of fact or law which were not simple. Mr. Narula, in my view, cannot derive any benefit from these cases.
8. In the present case, it is evident from the perusal of the facts that these are complicated and the questions of law involved in the case are also not simple. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the respondents cannot take benefit from the observations in the cases referred to by him. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that it will be proper that the inquiry is not held till decision of the criminal case.
9. Faced with that situation, the learned counsel for the respondents sought to urge that in the criminal case, even the challan has not been put in in the court till today and the plea has been taken by the petitioner to further delay the proceedings of the inquiry. He submits that in that situation, the proceedings of the inquiry may not be stayed.
10. I am not impressed with the contention of the learned counsel. In case the challan has not been put in, the respondents should take appropriate steps to get the case expedited. In view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mill's case (supra), it will not be proper to proceed with the inquiry on the aforesaid ground. For the reasons given above, I accept the writ petition and restrain the respondents from proceeding with the inquiry till decision of the criminal case. No costs.
11. Petition allowed.