WA No. 714 of 2016 in W.P.C. No. 28933/2013: The Andhra Bank represented by its Chairman & General Manager, Head Office, Dr Pattabhi Bhavan, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad; Deputy General Manager & Appellate Authority, HRD; Assistant General Manager & Disciplinary Authority, Zonal Office, Bangalore; Branch Manager, Ernakulam; General Manager (HR) & Reviewing Authority, HRD vs C.P. Sreenath Varsha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1940 WA.No. 714 of 2016 IN WPC. 28933/2013 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28933/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 25-02-2016 ## APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ANDHRA BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, ANDHRA BANK, DR PATTABHI BHAVAN, SECRETARIAT ROAD, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD 500 004. 2 THE DEAPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, HEAD OFFICE, ANDHRA BANK, DR PATTABHI BHAVAN, SECRETARIAT ROAD, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD 500 004. 3 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER & DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, ZONAL OFFICE, ANDHRA BANK, BANGALORE ZONE, NO.4/1, I FLOOR, ZENITH CHEAMBERS, OFF HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. 4 THE BRANCH MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK, PB NO.14, AJAY VIHAR, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, 682 016, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER MR.KURIAKOSE JACOB. 5 THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR) AND REVIEWING AUTHORITY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, HEAD OFFICE, ANDHRA BANK, DR PATTABHI BHAVAN, SECRETARIAT ROAD, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD 500 004. BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (CHELAKKADAN) SMT.ASHA BABU ## RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: C.P.SREENATH VARSHA-50/2104-C, KUNNUMPURAM, NORTH EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682024. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ BY ADV. SRI.MANU GOVIND THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-03-2018,THE COURT ON 12/4/2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **A.M. SHAFFIQUE & P.SOMARAJAN, JJ.** ========================== W.A.No. 714 of 2016 ==================== Dated this, the 12[th] day of April, 2018 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## _**Shaffique, J.**_ This appeal is filed by the respondents in WP(C) No.28933/2013 challenging judgment dated 25/2/2016. Writ petition was filed by the respondent herein challenging the disciplinary action taken against him by the appellants. 2. The respondent while working as an Assistant Manager in Thodupuzha was issued with a charge sheet dated 22/11/2011 alleging certain misconducts. An enquiry was conducted and certain charges were found to be proved. The management accepted the enquiry report and by Ext.P1 order dated 30/11/2012, he was dismissed from service. He preferred an appeal on 12/1/2013 as Ext.P2. Orders were passed on 25/4/2013 as per Ext.P3 converting the order of dismissal to compulsory retirement from the service of the Bank. Though a review petition was filed, it came to be rejected and left with no other remedy, WA No.714/16 -:2:- ## respondent/petitioner has approached this Court. 3. The main contention urged by the petitioner was that the order of dismissal was without any proof of the allegations. Despite the fact that certain charges were found to be proved by the enquiry officer, there is absolutely no material to substantiate the same. 4. The learned Single Judge observed that the findings of the enquiry officer on the allegations were totally based on extraneous reasons and there is no material to indicate that the respondent had signed the documents in the letter head of the Bank. During the course of hearing, the appellant Bank was directed to produce the records relating to the enquiry and on a perusal of the documents, it was _prima facie_ observed that the signatures were not similar. The learned Single Judge considered each and every allegations raised, the finding of the enquiry officer and observed that fresh enquiry is required to be conducted. But since it was found that the CBI case is pending before the criminal Court, the departmental enquiry was directed to be kept in abeyance till the proceedings of the Criminal Court are completed. WA No.714/16 ## -:3:- 5. Learned senior counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge had exceeded its jurisdiction while interfering with the disciplinary proceedings. It is submitted that this is an instance where an officer of a Bank has conducted certain misconducts and when an enquiry is conducted and the enquiry officer finds that he is guilty of certain misconducts, and the appellate authorities have confirmed the same with due application of mind, it was not open for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a different finding. Further, while directing fresh disciplinary proceedings to be conducted, there was no reason to keep it pending until culmination of a criminal case. 6. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) _**Govindan A. v. State Bank of Travancore Zonal Office**_ (2016 KHC 673). This was a case arising under the Industrial Disputes Act. While considering a question relating to the challenge against an award, the Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the discretionary power of the Labour Court u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ID Act). It WA No.714/16 ## -:4:- was held that when the management has lost confidence in a worker, it is open for the management Bank to inflict punishment of dismissal. Further it was observed that loss of confidence can be inferred in view of the nature of duty cast upon the workman as a Clerk cum Cashier in a Bank. After referring to a long line of judgments, it was further found that the reason that the workman has no past bad record is immaterial in cases involving serious charges of fraudulent acts committed by him. Relying upon other judgments of the Apex Court, it was held that an employee working in a banking institution is supposed to maintain high degree and standard of honesty, integrity and devotion to duty particularly when he is functioning as a Clerk-cum-Cashier who is entrusted with funds and is supposed to deal with money of the customers, as made clear by the Apex Court. That he has not been benefited in any manner nor that any loss has been caused to the Bank is not at all relevant in such instances. ## (ii) _**Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T.Murali Babu**_ [(2014) 4 SCC 108]. This was a case in which disciplinary proceedings were taken against a Junior Engineer for unauthorized absence. The enquiry WA No.714/16 -:5:- officer found that the charges were proved against him which came to be confirmed by the disciplinary authority. Contention urged by the delinquent officer was that he was continuously under treatment for tuberculosis and later he met with an accident. The learned Single Judge found that the punishment of dismissal from service for the first time absenteeism is too harsh and disproportionate and therefore interfered with the punishment of dismissal. Though a writ appeal was filed, it accepted the conclusion of learned Single Judge. The Apex Court observed that the only issue that was considered was regarding the proportionality of the punishment and there was no argument on the issue whether the charges levelled against the officer had been proved or not. After referring to a long line of judgments, it was held that unauthorized absence of an employee as a misconduct cannot be put into a straightjacket formula for imposition of punishment. It depends upon many factors like the nature of service, the position held by the employee, the period of absence and the cause/explanation for the absence. Coming to the doctrine of proportionality in the context of imposition of punishment in Service Law, it was held that punishment is not WA No.714/16 -:6:- shockingly disproportionate. (iii) In _**LIC of India v. R.Dhandapani**_ [(2006) 13 SCC 613], the Court was considering the scope of judicial review in matters relating to dismissal from service for misconduct. It was held that power u/s 11A of the ID Act is to be exercised only when punishment is found to be shockingly disproportionate to degree of guilt of the workman. 7. Yet another proposition which had been placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellant is regarding the conduct of enquiry while a criminal case is pending. It is argued that there is no hard and fast rule that the disciplinary action has to continue till the entire criminal prosecution is over. Reference has been made to the following judgments:- (i) _**Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Another v. Mehar Singh**_ [(2013) 7 SCC 685]. Paragraphs 24 and 26 are relevant which reads as under:- _**“24.** xxxxxx We are aware that the question of corelation between a criminal case and a departmental enquiry does not directly arise here, but, support can be drawn from the principles laid down by this Court in connection with it because the issue involved is somewhat identical, namely, whether to allow a person_ WA No.714/16 -:7:- _with doubtful integrity to work in the department. While the standard of proof in a criminal case is the proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental proceeding is preponderance of probabilities. Quite often criminal cases end in acquittal because witnesses turn hostile. Such acquittals are not acquittals on merit. An acquittal based on benefit of doubt would not stand on a par with a clean acquittal on merit after a full-fledged trial, where there is no indication of the witnesses being won over. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India this Court has taken a view that departmental proceedings can proceed even though a person is acquitted when the acquittal is other than honourable.”_ _**“26.** In light of the above, we are of the opinion that since the purpose of the departmental proceedings is to keep persons, who are guilty of serious misconduct or dereliction of duty or who are guilty of grave cases of moral turpitude, out of the department, if found necessary, because they pollute the department, surely the above principles will apply with more vigour at the point of entry of a person in the police department i.e. at the time of recruitment. If it is found by the Screening Committee that the person against whom a serious case involving moral turpitude is registered is discharged on technical grounds or is acquitted of the same charge but the acquittal is not honourable, the Screening Committee would be entitled to cancel his candidature. Stricter norms need to be applied while appointing persons in a disciplinary_ WA No.714/16 -:8:- _force because public interest is involved in it.”_ ## (ii) _**State Bank of India and others v. Neelam Nag &**_ _**another**_ [(2016) 9 SCC 491]. In this case, the Apex Court held at paragraphs 13 to 15 as under:- _“_ _**13.** We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The only question that arises for consideration is no more res integra. It is well settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. However, no straitjacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters on case-to-case basis. The contour of the approach to be adopted by the Court has been delineated in a series of decisions._ _**14.** This Court in Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao has summed up the same in the following words: (SCC pp. 449-50, paras 16-17)_ _(i) There is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously._ _(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts or law._ _(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer_ WA No.714/16 -:9:- _clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings._ _(iv) Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common._ _(emphasis supplied)_ _**15.** The recent decision relied on by the appellant in Stanzen, has adverted to the relevant decisions including M.G. Vittal Rao. After adverting to those decisions, in para 16, this Court opined as under: (Stanzen case, SCC p. 643)_ _“16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defence before the criminal court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact. The court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early_ WA No.714/16 -:10:- _conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the employees.” (emphasis supplied)_ ## (iii) In _**Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. M.Mani**_ [(2018) 1 SCC 285], it was held at paragraphs 20 to 23 and 33 as under:- _**“20.** Similarly, in our considered view, the Labour Court failed to see that the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are two separate proceedings in law. One is initiated by the State against the delinquent employees in criminal court and other i.e. departmental enquiry which is initiated by the employer under the Labour/Service Laws/Rules, against the delinquent employees._ _**21.** The Labour Court should have seen that the dismissal order of the respondents was not based on the criminal court’s judgment and it could not be so for the reason that it was a case of acquittal. It was, however, based on domestic enquiry, which the employer had every right to conduct independently of the criminal case._ _**22.** This Court has consistently held that in a case where the enquiry has been held independently of the criminal proceedings, acquittal in criminal court is of no avail. It is held that even if a person stood acquitted by the criminal court, domestic enquiry can still be held— the reason being that the standard of proof required in a domestic enquiry and that in criminal case are altogether different. In a criminal case, standard of_ WA No.714/16 ## -:11:- _proof required is beyond reasonable doubt while in a domestic enquiry, it is the preponderance of probabilities. (See Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao.)_ _**23.** In the light of this settled legal position, the Labour Court was not right in holding that the departmental enquiry should have been stayed by the appellant awaiting the decision of the criminal court and that it is rendered illegal consequent upon passing of the acquittal order by the criminal court. This finding of the Labour Court is, therefore, also not legally sustainable”._ _**“33.** In the case on hand, the appellant employer had conducted the departmental enquiry in accordance with law independently of the criminal case wherein the enquiry officer, on the basis of the appreciation of evidence brought on record in the enquiry proceedings, came to a conclusion that a charge of theft against the delinquent employees was proved. This finding was based on preponderance of probabilities and could be recorded by the enquiry officer notwithstanding the order of criminal court acquitting the respondents”._ 8. It is argued that the learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that there is a bar for departmental proceedings when the matter is pending before the Criminal Court, especially when the facts are identical and similar and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent is of a grave nature which includes complicated question and law on facts _._ _**Capt.M.Paul Anthony v.**_ WA No.714/16 -:12:- _**Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.**_ [(1999) 3 SCC 679], which had been relied upon by the Court below does not lay down such a finding. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the charges proved against him were without any basis at all. The allegations were that the respondent had connived with the partners of M/s.Alpha Overseas Consultancy and issued false/fabricated educational loan/personal loan sanction letters in the individual names of persons who are intending to go to Australia on students visa and that he has also fabricated disbursement certificates in the name of students showing the amount disbursed from education loan sanctioned to the other students. The other charge was that the respondent had permitted opening of 30 SB/ABG/ABJ accounts for aspirants/students without following the KYC norms. Yet another allegation was that as per the day book and ledger account of M/s.Alpha Overseas Consultants for the year 2008-09, the delinquent had accepted a total amount of `4,44,400/- towards processing charges on different occasions from the partners of the firm which were not accounted in the books of the Bank. The other charge was that he had issued acknowledgments to M/s WA No.714/16 -:13:- Alpha Overseas Consultants in token of having received the amount of `41,200/-, `16,400/- and `41,200/- and yet another allegation was that he had failed to inform the sanctions in monthly ADA returns to the controlling office. 10. It is submitted that the allegation was that respondent had issued false and fabricated educational loan/personal loan sanction letters in the individual names of persons and he had issued certificates in the names of students and had opened 30 SB/ABG/ABJ accounts without following the KYC norms. It is argued that in fact it was the respondent who had brought to the notice of the Bank regarding the false and fabricated documents and it is thereafter the Bank had come to know about such matters. However, he has been made a scapegoat. Therefore, the whole issue that was germane for consideration was whether the respondent had fabricated any documents. It is for the said purpose that the learned Single Judge had called for the enquiry file and has _prima facie_ opined that the signatures in the questioned documents do not appear to be same as that of the respondent. It is submitted that the very same issue regarding fabrication of document is pending before the Criminal Court and WA No.714/16 -:14:- it may not be possible to permit the disciplinary authority to conduct a fresh departmental proceeding during the pendency of the criminal case. It is submitted that whether the respondent had signed or had fabricated documents is a matter to be considered by expert evidence. An enquiry officer by a mere perusal of the document cannot arrive at such a conclusion. When the learned Single Judge having gone through the documents had clearly observed that the findings of the enquiry officer were erroneous, there is no reason why the same should be interfered by this Court in appeal. 11. Primarily what is to be considered is the nature of jurisdiction that this Court should exercise in a matter relating to disciplinary proceedings against an employee of a Bank. 12. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, being a Banking institution, the work of an Officer of the Bank has to be blemishless, failing which the entire banking situation will fail. Banks deal with public money and if the Bank has lost confidence in an employee who is supposed to have involved in certain misconducts, the Bank will be justified in taking appropriate action against such delinquent officer. WA No.714/16 -:15:- 13. When a banking institution is of the view that the employee was involved in a misconduct and the Bank has lost confidence in such employee, the Court's jurisdiction is confined to the following factors:- - _(i) Whether the management had complied with the procedural formalities?_ - _(ii) Whether there is violation of natural justice?_ - _(iii) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the finding of the disciplinary authority?_ - _(iv) Whether the punishment is disproportionate to the proved charges?_ 14. There is no dispute as far as the procedural formalities are concerned and there is no contention that there is violation of natural justice. 15. Contention of the respondent is on merits. With reference to allegation No.1, learned Single Judge proceeded to find that in so far as the respondent does not admit that he had issued any of the educational loan or personal loan sanction letters and his contention is that it has been forged by the educational agency, the finding of the enquiry officer that the documents were under the letter head of the Bank and the signature bears the resemblance of the respondent by itself was not enough to WA No.714/16 -:16:- implicate the respondent. As far as the second charge is concerned, it was observed that the enquiry officer proceeded on the basis that letter head of the Bank was used which again is not correct and therefore the finding was erroneous. Referring to the 3[rd] allegation of opening of 30 Savings Bank account, enquiry officer found that the Savings Bank account were actually opened in the ledgers of the bank and they were in accordance with KYC norms issued by the Bank. However it was found that the Savings Bank account number were shown as educational loan numbers in the disputed document, which according to the learned Single Judge cannot be pinned on to the respondent, as nothing was found to link the documents recovered by the investigating agency to the respondent. But for the fact that the documents were in the letter head of the Bank which contains signatures with close resemblance with that of the respondent, there is no other material. As far as the 4[th] allegation is concerned, it was observed that the enquiry officer had taken the statement of an employee of the educational agency, who admitted that she had forged the signature of the respondent in 3 documents. The enquiry officer found that the other signature could be presumed to be that of WA No.714/16 -:17:- the respondent. Learned Single Judge finds that the same is in the realm of surmises and conjectures. 16. The question is whether the writ court is expected to consider whether documents had been forged or fabricated by the officer concerned. When the enquiry officer forms an opinion based on the materials before it that the delinquent was responsible for the misconducts and he bases his opinion on certain set of facts and materials, unless it is perverse, it is not open for the High Court to interfere. High Court is not sitting in appeal against the findings of the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority. Merely because a different view is possible by itself cannot be a reason for interference. This position of law is well settled in _**S.B.I v Ram Lal Bhaskar**_ [(2011) 10 SCC 249) and paragraph 13 of which reads as under:- **“** _**13.** Thus, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by some evidence the High Court does not reappreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on the evidence. This position of law has been reiterated in several decisions by this Court which we need not refer to,_ WA No.714/16 ## -:18:- _and yet by the impugned judgment the High Court has reappreciated the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are not substantiated by any material on record and the allegations levelled against Respondent 1 do not constitute any misconduct and that Respondent 1 was not guilty of any misconduct”._ 17. The allegations raised are of very serious nature. The findings by the enquiry officer which had been confirmed by the disciplinary authority would indicate that 19 loan sanctioned letters and certificates had been issued in the letter head of the Bank. Apparently there was no document in the Bank to indicate that such loans were sanctioned and letters were issued. Therefore, it was not officially issued by the Bank and there is no official record. No such loan was also given to any of the students and apparently the certificates were fake. The enquiry officer proceeds on the basis that the letter heads used were that of the Bank and the FIR filed before the Special Judge also indicates that the delinquent had signed false education loan papers. With regard to allegation No.3, the finding by the enquiry officer is that 30 SB/ABG/ABJ accounts were opened in the name of aspirants/students, but they were opened in compliance with KYC WA No.714/16 -:19:- guidelines. But the record reveals that the respective SB account numbers are shown as educational loan numbers. The fourth allegation is that the officer has accepted a total amount `4,44,500/- towards processing charges on different occassions. 9 details are mentioned. Defence is that the entry in books of account of M/s. Alpha Overseas Consultancy were fabricated by them. Enquiry officer referred to a statement of Miss.Aniyamma Johan, an employee of M/s.Alpha Overseas Consultants. She stated that 3 vouchers are in her handwriting and she had forged the signatures. Enquiry officer finds that in respect of the remaining transactions, there is no rebuttal and therefore the allegation as against the delinquent officer stands proved. 18. In fact, the allegation against the delinquent officer is of a very serious nature and cannot be lightly brushed aside. In the charge sheet, reference has been made to the day book and ledger account of M/s Alpha Overseas Consultants which indicates that an amount `4,45,500/- had been paid to the delinquent employee. Why should such an organization write in their accounts about payment to the delinquent officer, unless he has some nexus with them. Reference is made to Aniyamma's 161 WA No.714/16 -:20:- statement before CBI. She had only stated that she had forged three receipts. But there is nothing to indicate that the payment was not made to the delinquent officer. While considering a series of allegations regarding false documents of the Bank being utilized by a consultancy like M/s Alpha Overseas Consultants, and their books indicate payment of certain amount to the delinquent employee with specific dates, one has to assume that there is some sort of arrangement between the delinquent officer and the said agency. The aforesaid allegation by itself apparently shows that there is justification on the part of the enquiry officer to arrive at a conclusion regarding the allegation of false documents being utilized. When this fact stands proved, the doubt expressed by the enquiry officer with respect to the other allegations gain strength. 19. Of course the learned Single Judge had called for the files and the signatures in the documents were verified and _prima facie_ opined that the signatures do not tally. But when the enquiry officer finds that the letter head of the Bank was used for issuing such certificates and loan sanction letters, it has to be considered as to how those letter heads reached the consultancy. WA No.714/16 -:21:- The enquiry officer says that signature of the delinquent officer closely resembles the signatures in the document. Though the defence has a contention that the letter heads were also forged, there is no such finding by the enquiry officer and the learned Single Judge had also not adverted to the said fact. 20. We are of the view that though separate charges were being considered, this is an instance where the entire allegations are to be read together. Everything started from an enquiry which came from the foreign institution regarding the veracity of the sanction letters allegedly issued by the Bank. According to the delinquent officer, he is the person who had reported the same to the higher officials. Apparently, he could not have concealed the said enquiry. As even otherwise, the enquiry could have come from different institutions. If we look at the facts, accounts were opened in the name of certain students and those numbers were used for the purpose of fabricating education loan sanction letters. Corresponding entries were made in the ledger accounts of the consultancy regarding payments effected to the delinquent officer. Therefore, a close nexus between the delinquent and the consultancy cannot be ruled out. However, in view of the fact WA No.714/16 -:22:- that the learned Single Judge had directed a fresh enquiry to be conducted in the matter, it is appropriate that a fresh enquiry is conducted. We do not want to interfere with the said finding. 21. The next question to be considered is whether there is any necessity to keep in abeyance the departmental enquiry until disposal of the criminal case. 22. Of course in _**Capt.M.Paul Anthony**_ (supra), after considering various judgments, it was held that if the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated question of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. In later judgments, especially in _**Karnataka SRTC v. M.G.Vittal Rao**_ [(2012) 1 SCC 442], the Apex Court held that the judgment in _**Capt. M. Paul Anthony**_ (supra) does not lay down the law of universal application. Facts, charges and nature of evidence etc, involved in an individual case would determine as to whether a decision of acquittal would have any bearing on the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry. Still WA No.714/16 -:23:- further, it was held that once the employer has lost confidence in the employee, and the _bona fide_ loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence reinstatement cannot be directed. 23. Therefore, we are of the view that from the factual material relied upon by the appellants, this is not a case in which the disciplinary action should wait until completion of the disciplinary proceedings. The bank in fact relies upon specific documents in order to prove the charges and we do not think that any complicated question of the fact or law arise for consideration in order to complete the disciplinary action. Since a _denovo_ disciplinary action is contemplated, it shall be open for the management to place additional records or materials to substantiate their contention. As to what should be done during the disciplinary action is a matter to be considered by the management and it is not appropriate for this Court to issue any direction regarding reinstatement of the respondent in service. It is open for the appellant to take appropriate decision in that WA No.714/16 ## -:24:- regard. Having regard to the aforesaid findings, we allow the appeal and the writ petition is disposed of as under:- While confirming the direction issued by the learned Single Judge quashing the disciplinary action, it shall be open for the disciplinary authority to conduct fresh proceedings in accordance with the procedure prescribed, however, without being influenced by any of the findings rendered by this Court in the judgment in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal. Sd/- ## **A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE** Rp //True Copy// PS to Judge