P.D. Gupta vs Reserve Bank Of India
1989 Latest Caselaw 340 Del

JUDGMENT

N.N. Goswamy, J.

(1) The challenge in this petition is to the order dt. 24-9-76 of dismissal from service as a result of departmental enquiry in terms of Reg. 43(l)(e) of the Regulations as .also appellate order dt.28.4.77, whereby petitioner was informed that his appeal has been considered by the Committee of the Central Board and has been dismissed.

(2) The brief facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner was employed in the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi as Assistant Treasurer. At the relevant time he was in charge of "Note Examination" Section D. The following irregularities were noticed: (1) certification of defective/mutilated notes as "entire" by the petitioner, though they were not entire and therefore, passable by him; (2) returning of defective/mutilated notes taken out from the tender of the Syndicate Bank to the representative of the said Bank without ensuring that they were branded with "mutilated payment refused" stamp; (3) acceptance of mutilated/defective notes for passing directly from the Coin/Note Examiner, instead of from the Group Supervisor and (4) substituting or being a party to the substitution of 187 defective/mutilated notes for good notes in the tender of the Syndicate Bank. Asa consequence of the irregularities noticed the petitioner was placed under suspension and on 14.1.75 a charge-sheet under Regulation 47 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, charging him on all the aforesaid four irregularities was issued. The charge-sheet was more or less in terms of the irregularities mentioned above. On consideration of the representation received from the petitioner the departmental enquiry was conducted by the Manager, New Delhi Office, to whom the power was delegated by the Competent Authority. The Enquiry Officer on consideration of the entire material found all the four charges as proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority served a notice to show cause as to why the order of dismissal be not passed against the petitioner. Again on consideration of the reply and the entire material the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal. As already indicated the petitioner filed an appeal which was considered by the Committee and was dismissed. The order of dismissal and the appeal was communicated to the petitioner by the Personnel Manager on 28.4.1977.

(3) Before I deal with the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner it would be useful to mention that three other employees of the Bank, namely, S/Shri Subhash Chander, A.L. Gupta and Bajaj were also charge-sheeted for the same transaction and the Disciplinary Authority had imposed punishments on those employees but none of them was dismissed from service. Charge-sheet served on Subhash Chander is exactly the same as of the petitioner. I shall deal with the effect of the findings in the case of Shri Subhash Chander at the relevant stage.

(4) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated inasmuch as the petitioner in spite of his request was not permitted to have the assistance of a counsel or even of next friend. It is true that he had made such a request which had been declined. However, I have been taken through the Regulations and the Regulations nowhere prescribed that the delinquent officer will be entitled to take assistance of a counsel or a next friend. Along with the counter affidavit the respondents have enclosed a circular letter dated 9.10.76 which makes it clear as by an earlier circular dated 4.10.68 it was provided that a non-workman, that is an employee who was having supervisory or officer status was not permitted to be defended by a representative whereas a workman was permitted. By this circular it was provided that even an officer would be permitted to take assistance of another officer of the Bank subject to certain conditions. This circular was obviously issued after the enquiry in the case of the petitioner had been concluded, therefore, the enquiry officer was right in rejecting the request of the petitioner for assistance by a counsel or a next friend and the action is in terms of the Regulations which were existing at the relevant time.

(5) [IN para 5 contention that impugned orders are non speaking is rejected].

(6) Now coming to the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner which is to the effect that real culprit was Subhash Chander who was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer as also by the Appellate Authority and inspite of that his services were not terminated and he was let off with minor penalties. The finding of the Competent Authority in the disciplinary proceedings instituted against Subhash Chander have been placed before me. On consideration of the evidence against Subhash Chander the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority are : "THEREFORE it is clear that these notes were substituted later by Subhash Chander, for good notes in the tender. In this connection, it may be noticed that Subhash Chander was the only person who handled the notes in loose form. After he made the packets, the notes were stitched and therefore, the mutilated notes could not have been inserted thereafter. If the mutilated notes were inserted in the note packets, it could only be by Subhash Chander, the person who made the note packets in question and stitched them....As regards the second contention the fact remains that these mutilated/defective notes were found in the packet. As pointed out in para 74 above, both Bajaj and Gupta have given evidence that the defective notes which were found in the packets were not in the packet before the packets were stitched. Therefore, it is clear that Subhash Chander had inserted these defective notes in the packets and later got the packets stitched. As pointed out above, once the packet was stitched, it would not be possible for any person to insert the defective notes, especially as these packets were seized by the Treasurer on that day. That Subhash Chander could not have inserted the notes is purely hypothetical argument. Though many persons were present in the hall, each person was attending to his own work and he would not be noticing what another person was doing. Subhash Chander must have substituted the notes very cleverly and avoided detection. Therefore, I reject the second contention".

(7) After recording the aforesaid finding the Disciplinary Authority proposed the penalty of dismissal from service pursuant to Regulation 47 (l)(e) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. In addition he also proposed to impose on him a penalty of recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,870.00 being the value of the notes substituted by him in terms of Reg. 47(1 )(d) However, after getting reply of Subhash Chander the Disciplinary Authority decided to take a lenient view only on the ground that Subhash Chander was a young person and had many years to go. Taking a lenient view it was decided to reduce his pay by six stages, the reduction having the effect of postponement of his future increments. In addition to (hat the recovery of Rs. 1,870.00 was also directed and the suspension order was revoked and Subhash Chander was allowed to rejoin his duty. The learned counsel contended that the charges against Subhash Chander were more grave than against petitioner and on the findings recorded in the case of Subhash Chander it cannot be said that the responsibility was that of the petitioner. As regards the responsibility of the petitioner it cannot be disputed that the packets and the notes were signed by him and he was over all in charge and was liable to account for any irregularly in the matter as it was his duty to check the entire notes before signing the same. He is definitely guilty at least of negligence. In view of the findings recorded in the case of Subhash Chander no definite findings were recorded against the petitioner as to whether he was guilty of substituting the notes or was a party to substitution of 187 defective/ mutilated notes and inspite of this the extreme penalty was imposed because of the seriousness of this charge.

(8) It is no doubt true that it is not for this Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to sit in appeal over the penalty awarded by the Competent Authority if the penalty could be awarded in accordance with the rules but in the present case I find that the Disciplinary Authority in the case of Subhash Chander and the petitioner were different and it may be that the findings in the case of Subhash Chander were not brought to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority in the case of the petitioner and that is why the extreme penalty has been imposed on the petitioner. The role of Subhash Chander is much more than the petitioner. If on humanitarian grounds a lenient view could be taken in respect of Subhash Chander on the ground that he was a young person, I find no reason as to why a similar view cannot be taken in respect of the petitioner who was at the fag end of his career. Normally I would have myself set aside the penalty imposed on the petitioner and impose a lighter penalty but I feel that it would be proper and reasonable to leave it to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the matter afresh and pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the penalty imposed on Subhash Chander and the observations made above. Case remitted.