An interim order of restraint was passed by learned Civil Judge on the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code which was challenged by the bank in appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, which was numbered as Appeal No.85/97.
294/2003 before the Delhi High Court to set aside the order dated 2.11.2002 passed by the First Appellate Court.
Charge was framed on 19.6.1996 wherein it was numbered that the employee along with one Shri John Daniel and Sri V.S. Murthy Director Finance of Bharat Dynamics Ltd. and others entered into a criminal companyspiracy with the object to make available to aforesaid John Daniel Rs.100 crores out of the surplus funds of Bharat Dynamics Ltd. A petition challenging the framing of charges is pending disposal before the Delhi High Court.
By order dated 2.11.2002, learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 20.1.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge.
On 27.7.1996 employee refused to reply to the charge sheet taking the ground that the matter was still pending in the Criminal Court and submission of reply shall amount to disclosure of defence during the departmental proceedings.
The FIR was registered in respect of the employee and the other persons for their involvement in companymitting fraud and companymission of other offences.
A suit was filed by the employee Suit No.801/1996 before the Civil Judge, Delhi along with an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for short the Code with prayer to restrain the appellant bank from proceeding further with the departmental proceedings.
60 crores.
Charge sheet in terms of Rules 67 and 68 of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules in short the Service Rules was issued on 19.6.1996 relating to the alleged irregularities companymitted by the employee while working as Deputy Manager at the companycerned branch.
The employee filed CM M No.
The suit is still pending.
A companyplaint was lodged with the Crime Branch, Delhi Police on 12.5.1994 for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
By the impugned judgment a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court directed stay of departmental proceedings till companyclusion of the criminal case pending against the respondent hereinafter referred to as the employee .
On 25.2.1995 a show cause numberice was issued to the respondent employee alleging that irregularities were companymitted while working at the companycerned branch which facilitated an attempt to defraud the bank to the tune of Rs.
A cheque of Rs.60 crores was issued and handed over to the employee for issuance of necessary deposit certificates in the name of aforementioned companycern.
3866/2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
On 16.11.1996 Inquiry Officer wrote a letter to the employee requiring the employee to appear at the inquiry.
He was, at the relevant time, working as officiating manager at the Green Park Extension branch of the bank.
Arising out of SLP Civil.
By the impugned order the High Court has allowed the application by reversing the order of learned Senior Civil Judge and restoring the order of stay passed by learned Civil Judge.
Instead of submitting any explanation, the employee filed a reply by letter dated 31.3.1995 stating that the same shall be submitted at the appropriate stage.
According to the employer Bank appellant herein he along with one Y.K. Sharma, another employee of the bank, met Director Finance of M s Bharat Dynamics Ltd. at his Hyderabad office and requested him to invest funds in the Green Park Extension branch and offered interest 14.5 on the invested funds.
It was alleged that he failed to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank official and highly prejudicial to the banks interest in violation of applicable Rule and such acts clearly amounted to misconduct.
