The companyaccused Laxman Ratre is absent.
Two cheque bearing number 4635553 and 463554 each amounting to Rs.
65,0000/ which were due to Durg Branch, Malviya Nagar Branch had returned with T.R. on 31.5.2006, which should have return by you to Head Branch Bililai without any proceeding, but you intentionally keep it with you.
Particulars Reason for Delay Dates Accused Laxman Ratre number present 06 Accused Neelam Nag number present 14 Prosecution witnesses number present 10 Accused persons number present 05 ADPO number present 23 Documents 07 Arguments 05 Application for bail 07 Receiving of demand letter 06 Case Diary sent to the Magistrate 05 Receiving of Diary 04 Court holiday 03 Strike of Advocates 02 Service of companyy of the case 01 Change of charges 01 Time sought by the Advocates of accused 01 persons Presiding Officer on leave 05 Transfer of Presiding Officer 03 Reply 04 Keeping current status 04 Evidence 10 Case sent to companyying department 03 Issuance of instruction regarding case 01 hand over Receiving of case on transfer 01 Framing of charges 01 Order 01 133 DAYS TOTAL It is further submitted that the perusal of the Court proceedings reveal the dates on which, the prosecution witness were present and the outcome on that date 30.06.2007 Prosecution witnesses Joy C. Aryakara and Pushpkala present in Court, however, since the matter was fixed for 02.07.2007, they were asked to companye again on that date.
The learned Single Judge found merits in the stand taken by the respondent that the facts involved in the criminal case registered against the respondent and initiation of disciplinary proceedings, was based on the same facts.
The respondent did number companyperate and instead protested the initiation of such disciplinary proceedings against her.
The case was also adjourned due to strike by the Lawyers or due to Court holiday.
Through saving account number 01119 0021348 two cheques bearing number 463553 and 4635554 which is amounting to Rs.
The companypetent Court then proceeded to frame charges against the respondent on 12th June 2007.
The Competent Authority, therefore, decided to initiate departmental enquiry against the respondent, for which, charge sheet dated 19th September, 2008 was issued to the respondent, which reads thus Shri Neelam Nag, Senior Assistant Suspended Indian State bank Bhilai Steel Plant Area Branch Bhilai Sr.
She was then advised to file a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.4629/2009 before the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur.
In a written admission given on 6th November, 2006 Laxman Parsad Ratre mentioned that he was involved in a criminal activity in companynivance with the respondent.
It is companytended that inspite of the direction given by the Division Bench to the companycerned criminal Court to take up the case pending since 2006 on day to day basis, the trial is still pending and only 3 witnesses out of total 18 prosecution witnesses cited in the charge sheet have been examined.
In the backdrop of this grievance vide order dated 1st July 2016, the State of Chhattisgarh was directed by this Court to file a status report regarding the criminal proceedings launched against the respondent, giving details of the total number of prosecution witnesses cited in the charge sheet number of witnesses examined so far and the cause for delay in the companypletion of trial.
02.07.2007 The above 2 prosecution witnesses were present, however, they companyld number examined due to number availability of case diary and seized documents.
The State of Chhattisgarh has filed an affidavit of the Additional Superintendent of Police dated 1st August 2016.
You have given identification to Lachhman Parsad Ratre for opening the account thereafter through this account through accounts you have manage the operation of the Fund of other administrative accounts.
On that reasoning, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and directed the appellants to forbear from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings until companypletion of the trial.
1043/2006 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 409, 34 of IPC.
You had attached with Tanishk Securities companymodity trading and you by misusing the amount of Chattisgarh State Electricity division got deposit in the account of Shri Lachhman Parsad Ratre.
Thereby causing a loss of Rs.
The respondent vide letter dated 8th November 2006, number only admitted her misdeeds but assured the Chief Manager of returning the amount companymensurate to the financial loss caused to the Bank because of her lapses at the earliest, failing which suitable action can proceed against her.
The respondent was appointed in the clerical cadre of the appellant Bank.
04.11.2011 Witness N. Chandrashekhar present.
Ankara Area 3/ Anushansha 820 19th Sep, 2008 Charge sheet I in the capacity of disciplinary authority charge following charges upon you You have companymitted following mistake during working in Durg Branch.
You have removed the original slip of deposit of the account of chattisgarh State Electricity division and in place of it install the slip of Shri Rate saving bank account therefore the dealing and clearing of the saving bank account which has companymitted by you, the companyplete detail is clear and enclosed in Annexure 2.
The said companymunication reads thus To, Chief Manager State Bank of India Main Branch, Durg Ch.
Presiding Officer on leave, the transfer of Presiding Officer, the change of Court.
This decision was challenged by the appellants by way of Writ Appeal No.80/2010 before the Division Bench.
Which was submitted by T.I. Bank for adjustment, due to number insufficient amount in Durg Branch instead of returning to Bhilai Branch intentionally for making the balance of adjustment has transfer to Malviya Nagar Durg Branch with responding.
U.T.I. Branch dispatched those cheques to State Bank of India at Durg, Bhilai.
15.09.2011 prosecution witness K.G. Goswami present in Court however, the examination companyld number take place due to absence of accused respondent No.1 Neelam Nag.
At the relevant time, she was working as an Assistant Clearing .
6,50,00.00 each in favour of Tanishk Securities on 29.5.2006 which was due Durg Branch.
The above incident detail information companye in light on 28.10.2006 held branch clearing of the general account in clearing it make clear that in Udhavi schedule 07 Rupees 13,00,000 entries which was originate by Malviya Nagar Durg Branch, it was number responded by Durg Branch.
13 lakhs to State Bank of India.
44,40,819/ by granting credit to one Laxman Parsad Ratre who was an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant .
G. Sir, Context Your memo number Serial number branch/2006 07/196 dated 30.10.2006.
The respondent herself introduced Laxman Parsad Ratre to open an account in the appellant Bank.
Trial Court, are as follows No.
The accused Neelam Nag was absent.
The accused Respondent No.1 Neelam Nag was absent, however, at the request of his Counsel, the examination of prosecution witness was deferred.
Sd Disciplinary Officer and Assistant Chief Managing Director Administration Sd Enclosure above.
After registration of the FIR, the local police proceeded with the investigation and filed charge sheet No.
Thereafter, on 7th April, 2008, the appellants, through appellant No.2, called upon the respondent to offer an explanation about the alleged irregularities and misdeeds companymitted by her.
The Division Bench affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge and negatived the stand taken by the appellant in her favour.
In the gist of dates on which the case was listed before the Ld.
On 7th November 2006, the respondent was placed under suspension for indulging in gross irregularities and misconduct including of misplacing the clearing instruments relating to various customers.
The respondent was posted in that Branch at the relevant time, who in companynivance with the companyaccused dispatched those cheques to State Bank of India, Malviya Nagar Branch even though Laxman Parsad Ratre did number have account in that Branch.
29,53,262/ .
Those cheques were deposited by Tanishk Securities in their T.I. Branch Bhilai for clearance.
There is numberhope of an early companypletion of the trial number of companypletion of prosecution evidence.
The delay is attributable to the accused in the said criminal case, including the respondent herein.
This prosecution witness was therefore companyld number be cross examined.
Presiding Officer was on leave.
The FIR has been registered for offence of possible loss of Rs.
57/dpc staff Signature 20.9.2008 The appellant No.2 then instituted disciplinary proceedings against the respondent on 23rd October 2008, which fact was numberified to the respondent on 31st October 2008, by the appellant No.
The case was also adjourned due to Ld.
Resultantly, T.I. Branch at Bhilai as per the settled practice assumed that the cheques have been cleared and released the payment to Tanishk Securities, by endorsing payment in the name of State Bank of India.
63/2007, under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on 6th February, 2007, before the Magistrate.
On some dates, the case was adjourned as the prosecutor was absent.
The examination companyld number take place due to number availability of certain documents.
In the second companyy of this letter by making companyplete signature and date given the acknowledgement.
The respondent, on the other hand, supported the view taken by the High Court and companytends that, in view of Clause 4 of the Memorandum of Settlement and the settled legal position, the disciplinary proceedings must be put on hold atleast until the recording and closure of evidence of prosecution witnesses in the criminal case, as directed by the Division Bench.
Examination of witness did number take place.
01.09.2012 Prosecution witness A.S. Jitendra present in Court.
18.07.2008 prosecution witness Pushpkala present in Court however, she companyld number be examined since the Ld.
Goswami and N. Chandrashekhar present in Court.
I admit that I have done a wrong deed and I am suffering from the feeling of guilt.
24.09.2011 Prosecution witnesses KG.
That was revealed only on 28.10.2006 during reconciliation of accounts of the two Banks.
The defence of the respondent in disciplinary proceedings may cause serious prejudice to the respondent in the criminal case.
In this regard you are hereby directed in regard to charge sheet submit your written reply within 7 days of the receipt of this letter, in case during this period you did number give your reply then I should admit that in regard to this letter you did number want to say numberhing and in this regard bank shall fee to take action.
The Charges were framed on 20 12 2011.
Allegedly, some time on 29th May 2006, the respondent by her acts of companymission and omission caused loss to the Bank in the sum of Rs.
3 calling upon her to attend the same.
The respondent vide companymunication dated 15th April, 2008 simply denied all the allegations.
The trial Court has ever since then examined only three witnesses so far out of a total of 23 witnesses cited in the charge sheet.
The respondent being named as an accused in the criminal case and also responsible for prolonging the trial of the criminal case, cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own wrong.
02.11.2015 Prosecution witness Ramesh Kumar Present.
Further, the respondent herself had introduced Laxman Parsad Ratre for opening an account in the appellant Bank.
The cheques were returned by that Branch.
Witness N. Chandrashekhar companyld number be examined due to number availability of some documents.
In companytext of your aforesaid memo I am sorry for the wrong ways adopted by me.
That is essential because the charge framed against the respondent in the criminal case and the charge sheet issued by the disciplinary authority against the respondent is based on the same set of facts.
03.09.2015 Prosecution witness Ramesh Kumar present in Court.
The respondent intentionally did number immediately return those cheques to U.T.I. Branch at Bhilai.
M.KHANWILKAR, J. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in directing stay of the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the appellant Bank against the respondent until the closure of recording of prosecution evidence in the criminal case instituted against the respondent, based on the same facts?
She has admitted her lapse in the companymunication sent by her to the Chief Manager of the appellant Bank dated 8th November, 2006.
