Dated: 14.10.2024

O R D E R

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. This is an appeal filed by complainant in CC/7/2024 on the file of DCDRC, Vijayapur, aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2024.  (The parties to this appeal will be referred as to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission)

2. This appeal is set to hear on admission.  Learned counsel for appellant/complainant is present. 

3. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsels.  Accordingly, found satisfied to dispense with issuance of notice of this appeal to be served on respondent to avoid unnecessary expenditure and delay.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that DCDRC has failed to consider the order of acquittal recorded in CC/230/2010, thereby   committed grave error in dismissing the complaint imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to OP.

5. Let us examine the impugned order, wherein could see complainant had raised Consumer Complaint against OP with a prayer to direct OP to release Rs.2,83,483/- standing to his credit in the SB Account on 22.09.2023 with accrued interest.  It is not in dispute that complainant was an employee of OP Bank and he was appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1998.  It is also not in dispute that while in service, he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 15.04.2009 for his proven misconduct for the charges of misappropriation of the funds of OP Bank.  It is not in dispute that he was having SB Account with OP Bank bearing SB Account No.0000017166030929 and had credit at Rs.2,83,423.65/- as on 22.09.2023.  It is this amount which he sought to be released from OP Bank with the help of Consumer Laws. 

6. It has also come in the enquiry that for the alleged misappropriation of funds of OP, criminal case has been launched against him, which came to be registered in Criminal Case No.231/2010 and the criminal law court acquit him from the said charges.   In our view in so far as findings recorded in Criminal Case acquitting complainant/accused is concerned cannot be considered to entertain the Consumer Complaint in consideration of   the findings recorded by disciplinary authority in a departmental enquiry proceedings, since the departmental enquiry proceedings are founded on the Principles of Preponderance of Probability whereas criminal jurisprudence expect charges shall have to be prove beyond reasonable doubts. It has also come in the enquiry and in fact DCDRC in para-13 found as per certified copy of the judgment passed in C.C.No.231/2010, the accused who is complainant herein was acquitted.  But facts remain as per Ex.R1 the enquiry officer found him guilty for his proven misconduct and he is bound to refund the amount mentioned in Ex.R1. In such circumstances of the case complainant cannot  raise  a Consumer Complaint against his employer for release of amount of Rs.2,83,423/- lying in his SB Account along with interest and such complaint raised seeking such relief has to be held is not sustainable under CPA.  In other words, the DCDRC has to be held rightly perceived the complaint raised by complainant, proceed to dismiss the complaint does not call for an interference. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the DCDRC imposed the cost of Rs.10,000/- which in our view considering the fact that he was acquitted by the criminal law court could be set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to dismiss the appeal by setting aside imposing of cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to OP and directed parties to the complaint to bear their own costs.

7. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal for information.

        Lady Member                                         Judicial Member              

*GGH*