Arvind Bhandari vs Reserve Bank Of India
1995 Latest Caselaw 355 Del

JUDGMENT

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

(1) The writ petitioner was employed as Press Relations Officer at the Central Office of the Reserve Bank of India in Bombay, a very sensitive post which involves the appreciation of the financing and monetary policies of the Government of India through the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, the functioning of a Press Relation Officer would be very important and a person has to maintain a congenial atmosphere not only amongst the superior officers and himself, but also between the Reserve Bank of India and the Press and the general public. He joined service as Press Relations Officer on March 1, 1985. Right from the beginning, it would appear that he has not been acting and functioning as it was expected of him. Within six years from the date of the joining the office on October 31, 1991 exercising the power under the Regulation 26 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the service w.e.f. the close of business on October 31, 1991. Challenging the above order, he filed the writ petition in February 1994.

(2) In the writ petition originally filed, he imploded the Finance Minister as the 1st respondent, Reserve Bank of India as the 2nd respondent,Ex. Governor, Reserve Bank of India as the 3rd respondent and Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India as the 4th respondent.

(3) By order dated 18th March 1994 Their Lordships Mr. Justice A.B.SAHARYA and Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari passed the following order :- "PRIMAfacie, the averments made in the petition do not warrant joining respondents 1,3 and 4 by name as parties in this case. We, therefore, delete their names from the array of parties. Consequently, Reserve Bank of India will now be the sole respondent The petitioner shall file an amended Memorandum of Parties within one week. Notice to the respondents to show cause why Rule nisi be not issued, returnable on 24th of May 1994."

Therefore, only respondent that remains in the case is the Reserve Bank of India. The case of the petitioner mainly is that he had been working with all sincerity and devotion to duty and there were no adverse remarks against him at any time, at any rate no adverse remarks were communicated to. him. He also contended that the order of compulsory retirement is violative of the principles of natural justice. He filed an appeal against the order compulsorily retiring on October 31, 1991 under Regulation 48/49 and the appeal was withheld and that was in gross violation of the Regulation. He also made a grievance about the deductions of certain amount towards trunk calls and other deductions to the tune of Rs. 12,874.77.

(4) The Reserve Bank of India filed the counter affidavit and the counter affidavit is sworn to by Mr.Ramanathan Ganesan working as Deputy Manager in the Department of Administration, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Bombay. He has stated in the counter that the petitioner joined the bank as an officer in Grade E on March I, 1985 and was posted as Press Relations Officer in the Secretary's. Department. Under Regulation 19 of the Regulations an officer in Grade C or above shall be required to be on probation for a period which shall not be less than one year and more than two years, as may be fixed by the Governor. His probationary period was ex tended and he was confirmed in Grade E w.e.f. 1st September 1986. The Committee of the Central Board of the Bank considered the service record of the petitioner in its meeting held on October 30, 1991 and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not fit to continue in service of the bank and decided that in the public interest petitioner be retired from the bank service under the third proviso in sub regulation (1) of Regulation 26 of the Regulations. On the date i.e. October 30, 1991 the petitioner had completed 50 years of age. Though not required under the Regulations, the petitioner was granted three months pay in lieu of notice. A top level decision making body of the Reserve Bank of India, namely., the Committee of the Central Board decided in public interest and such decision was based on facts. Though the petitioner was not eligible for certain benefits, such as pension, the bank worked out the amount payable to him at Rs. 4,92,510.45. The bank worked out the figures in the following manner :- "BALANCE Of P.F. (INCLUDING INTEREST) As On 31.3.1992: Employees's subscription: 4,30,633.24 Bank's contribution : 61,877.21 4,92,510.45 Less BANK'S Dues a) T/A in connection with the Cochin tour 1,292.00 b) Vehicle Advance 75,600.00 c) Accrued interest on vehicle advance 6,188.00 d) House Rent 600.00 e) Cost of damages to Bank's flat 50.00 f) Provision for Electricity 1,000.00 g) Provision for Telephone Bill 25,000.001,09,730.00 Net amount paid: 3,82,780.00" It is stated that a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 was deducted towards the electricity consumed by him. A sum of Rs. 12,587.70 was deducted towards the excess/ISD telephone calls from his residence/ office telephone provided by the bank. It is also stated by the bank in the counter that the petitioner challenged the deductions. A letter dated October 19, 1992 was written by him to the bank and a reply was sent by the bank on January 5, 1993. It is submitted that Regulations 48 and 49 of the Regulations do not provide for right of appeal against the decision of the Committee of the Central Board and, therefore, Rbi was justified in withholding the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated October 31, 1991.

(5) The facts and circumstances under which the petitioner was compulsory retired from service is not set out in the counter, though reference is made to it. We directed the learned counsel appearing for the Bank to produce the file and the file was made available to us. On a perusal of the file the following facts would emerge. On July 6, 1991 Joint Chief Manager Smt. K.J. Udeshi had put a note mentioning petitioner's service remarks in the following terms:- "DEPARTMENTOF Administration (SECTION III) Shri Arvind Bhandari, Press Relations Officer Placed below is a press cutting of an article which appeared in 'The Daily' of 4th July 1991. In the article it has been stated in no uncertain terms that the efficiency of the RBI's Press Relations Officer is diminishing at a faster rate than the value of the rupee, that the Press Relations Department of the Bank is sluggish and that the Press Relations Officer messed up the whole press conference called by the Governor of the Bank. It further states that the Pro did not even have the phone numbers of most of the commercial editors/senior correspondents, as a result of which many of them did not know about the press conference till it was over, which speaks volumes of the Bank's "press relations".

(6) The Press Relations Officer concerned, who has brought disrepute to the Bank, is Shri Arvind Bhandari, Officer in Grade E. We, therefore, need to consider seriously and urgently whether we need to continue him in the service of the Bank.

(7) Shri Arvind Bhandari joined the Bank as Press Relations Officer on 1st March 1985 as Officer in Grade E. On completion of one year's service in Grade E his case for confirmation was taken up in March 1986. It was then observed that Shri Bhandari had begun his innings in the Bank by following the discipline of the Bank, more in the breach, than in the observance thereof. Immediately on joining the Bank, he undertook a private visit to West Germany. For this visit he sought the Bank's permission over the telephone from Delhi and he was advised to contact the Delhi Manager before proceeding abroad. Shri Bhandari, however, proceeded to West Germany without doing so. On another occasion, he approached the Governor for permission to go to Delhi so as to be present at a meeting held by Governor with economic editors. It later transpired that Shri Bhandari had earlier sought the then Executive Director, Shri A. Hasib's approval for this visit, to which Ed, Shri Hasib, was not quite in favor and this fact was not disclosed to the Governor.

(8) In November 1985, he wrote an article in The Sunday Observer, entitled 'High Hopes on Rajiv's Japan Visit'. He neither obtained the Bank's permission for writing the article nor did he inform the Bank about it. The article dealt with statistical information of trade and international collaborations and went even so far as to what stand the Prime Minister should take with regard to trade arrangements. For having acted in violation of the Staff Regulations and for placing the Bank in an embarrassing situation, the Bank's displeasure was conveyed to him. On further enquiry, it was revealed that Shri Bhandari had contributed 9 other articles to the press without obtaining the Bank's permission. Shri Bhandari was, therefore, not confirmed in Grade E in March 1986.

(9) Thereafter, although Shri. Bhandari was confirmed in Grade E, there has never been any occasion to appreciate his performance. On the contrary, there have been several instances of his indolene, inefficiency and misconduct, as follows :- a) He has issued several incorrect press releases, as listed in Annexure I, which has placed the Bank in an embarrassing position. b) On several occasions, when he was asked to stay in office in connection with the issue of a press release, he expressed inability to do so and there have been instances when he actually disobeyed such instructions. Such instances have been cited in Annexure II. c) He has ignored or flouted office procedures on various matters, such as applications for leave, sanction of tour programmes, submission of bills for reimbursement for conveyance/entertainment,- etc. Such instances, which are in plentiful, are listed in Annexure III.

(10) As regards his Performance Appraisal Reports, it will be observed that during the last three years, i.e. 1988, 1989 and 1990, his ratings are as follows:- Year Rating Remarks, if any 1988 'B + ' "Shri Bhandari has shown a (114) strong proclivity to ignore or flout well established office procedures on various matters such as applications for leave, sanction of tour programmes and bills for reimbursements for conveyance/entertainment. Shri Bhandari has already been cautioned in writing on these matters and I would not recommend any further action on this at this stage. If, however, there are any recurrence of such incidents, the Bank may be constrained to take suitable action." ED(T) "In general Shri Bhandari has not yet been able to carry with him the various departments which is essential for a successful PRO. In terms of editing, etc., he is good." DG(R) Year Rating Remarks, if any 1989 'B + ' Knowledge of work: "As a (115) Officer with over 4 years' service his knowledge of procedures, rules/regulations is poor. "Adaptability : "Shri Bhandari has had serious difficulties in adjusting to the work environment in the Bank." "......I am of the view that the Pro would need to show a vastly improved performance before he can be considered for promotion to Grade F....." ED)(T) "I agree with the assessment of ED(T). Shri Bhandari could so much more to carry the other departments with him so that his role as Pro can be enhanced." 1990 'B+' Punctuality & Regularity in (101) Attendance: "Does not observe self-discipline expected of a Senior Officer in charges of a unit, in regard to attendance and availment of leave." Loyalty to the institution : "Has strong tendencies to go by considerations other than the Bank's interests, in his work and dealings. Loyal only to his own self." Leadership : "Gets co-operation and support from subordinates, but does not set good example." "Cannot be considered as an Officer whose integrity is beyond doubt." "He does not conduct himself in a manner befitting a Senior Officer of the Bank in spite of the written advice issued to him in March 1990. Lacks respect for authority and tends to be defiant and overstep his limits." Shri P.Y.Padhye, Secretary "THE appraisal by the Reporting Officer is extremely balanced and fair and the Report succinctly brings out Shri Bhandari's strengths and weaknesses and if at all it errs it is on the side of being somewhat liberal. Shri Bhandari certainly has some communication skills but he has clearly erred in stating under Item No. 1 that "...no mistake has ever been conveyed to me..." It is a matter of record that the former Governor, Shri R.N. Malhotra, was constrained to call Shri Bhandari and express his strong displeasure at the lack of discretion while publishing certain items in the Reviews. Shri Bhandari's major problem has been a total inability to accept the ethics and mores of work in the Reserve Bank. He has a proclivity towards being excessively over-bearing and he makes a habit of trying to hassle Management into granting him special personal favors on travel, leave and other related matters. Shri Bhandari has a tendency not to submit tour reports even in cases which obviously require a tour report and that too after reminders. Shri Bhandari has been representing that he be interviewed for Grade F. My assessment is that Shri Bhandari's overall performance is not such as would enable us to recommend that he be considered for promotion to Grade F. Its would be best if this is unequivocally communicated to Shri Bhandari."

ED(T) "I agree with the assessment of ED(T). Though his technical abilities are good, he has not been able to carry with him his colleagues. This is a failing particularly in a Press Relations Officer." DG(R)

(11) In the past, Shri Bhandari has been issued several letters of displeasure and in March 1990, the then Governor, Shri R.N. Malhotra, had cautioned Shri Bhandari about the faux pas committed by him. It may be mentioned here that Shri Bhandari represented against his being counseled by the Governor, which in itself, is an act of insubordination.

(12) The above paragraphs have highlighted Shri Bhandari's indolence, inefficiency and misconduct. What is far, far, worse is his moral character. I would like to place on record that there have been instances when female employees of the Bank have approached me to say that they have been accosted by Shri Bhandari with unpleasant propositions. These ladies, out of sheer fright, have not made any written complaint to the Bank. His modus operandi is to accost these employees in the Class Iii Canteen foyer on the third floor and introduce himself as a Senior Officer of the Bank and say that he would like to interview them, for which purpose, they should see him in his cabin. As if this is not bad enough, he used the same modus operandi outside the Bank and this would never have come to light and he not inadvertently accosted on the street, a lady who happens to be an Officer of the Bank.

(13) It may also be placed on record here that there has been an instance where one lady officer who was staying alone here, after having been transferred to Bombay, was harassed by Shri Bhandari to such an extent that the Department of Administration had to intervene and re-transfer that lady back to her parent office.

(14) I would also like to place on record that I have personally been informed by an outsider, a widow, that she was being harassed by Shri Bhandari. When she came to know that he was employed with the Reserve Bank as a Senior Officer, she contacted me to make a telling comment as to whether the Reserve Bank has reached such depths as to have on its rolls a man of such low moral calibre.

(15) Further, recently the Bank wished to give wide publicity over television to inform the public that the design on the new Rs. 10.00 note has been changed. When this was not done by Doordarshan, one of our officials from the Department of Currency Management went personally to the Doordarshan Office. The Doordarshan official admitted that the Press Relations Officer had come, but all that he was interested in was to eye the ladies there and that he should not be sent to the Doordarshan Office in future.

(16) The above are incidents which are normally never put on record but which are known to one and all in the Bank by word of mouth. The recent press cutting from 'The Daily" is a culmination of all these events. His image in the eyes of the Bank's staff, be it Class Iii or Officers, is abysmal but now he has even brought down the image of the Bank. It is, therefore, clearly not in the public interest that the Reserve Bank should continue the services of Shri Bhandari and that too as a Press Relations Officer.

(17) It is, therefore, proposed that since Shri Bhandari is above the age of 50, we may, under Regulation 26(l)(iii) of the Rbi (Staff) Regulations, 1948, retire him from the service of the Bank. No notice is required to be given.

(18) It may be mentioned in this context that in an earlier case of Shri P.S. Mahadevan, Staff Officer Grade A of Trivandrum Office, the Kerala High Court struck down the third proviso to Regulation 26(i) of the Rbi (Staff) Regulations, 1948, on the ground that it does not sate expressly that the Bank can retire employees after the age of 50 in the public interest. We have yet to carry out the necessary amendment to the Staff Regulations. Principal Legal Adviser has been consulted in this regard and he has opined that the amendment should be carried out quickly but that in the meanwhile, we may go ahead and obtain the approval of the Committee of the Central Board to retire Shri Bhandari under Regulation 26(1)(iii) of the Staff Regulations.

(19) If the course of action proposed above meets with Governor's approval, a Memorandum to the Committee of the Central Board will be put up. sd/- Jt. C.M. 6.7.91"

(20) On July 8, 1991 the Chief Manager had made the following remarks :- "Apart from his behavior and conduct, both in the office and out, which are questionable and unbecoming of a senior officer, his performance as a Pro has not been up to the mark. His being habitually unpunctual in attendance is known. Adverse comments on Shri Bhandari's performance and the functioning of the Press Relations Division have been made in the Inspection Report, 1989 as well as Audit Reports. Shri Bhandari had also not taken any action for compliance of' the irregularities in the Audit Reports. Shri Bhandari does not deserve to continue in the Bank. Proposal made in the note may please be approved. sd/- A.P. Aiyer 8.7.1991" On July 9, 1991 the Executive Director Mr.V. Visvanathan had also recorded the repugnant of the petitioner in the following terms:- "A note recorded recently by Secretary (Shri Padhye) and ED(T) on the untoward behavior of Shri Arvind Bhandari in DG(R)'s room during the latter's telephonic conversation with an official in the Imf, Washington, as also the delay on his part in the issue of an important press release by the Bank on 22 April 1991, which is self-explanatory, is placed below for perusal.

(21) I am personally aware of the deficiencies both in Shri Arvind Bhandari's performance of his official duties and his behavior with his colleagues and other employees of the Bank, in the course of my work as Chief Officer, Iecd, later as Secretary, and more recently as Ed in charge of administration. Besides what has been set out at length in the foregoing notes, I should also record that it became necessary to advise Shri Bhandari specifically that all the draft material prepared by him or in the Press Relations Division for inclusion in the Rbi Newsletter and Credit Information Review should be got cleared by the concerned Heads of Departments, following the discovery that certain information/material which was confidential and ought not to have been put in the Newsletter had been included, or that there were summaries of Central Office circulars which conveyed the actual instructions incorrectly. Furthermore, a few lady officers of the Bank both in the Bombay Office and in the Central Office buildings have conveyed to me privately their extreme unhappiness and anxiety over the irresponsible behavior of Shri Bhandari in the Officers' Lounge and Dining Hall in both the buildings. Shri Bhandari had, on several occasions, been found to be not in a very balanced state of mind when he barged into the rooms of the top management or other senior Executives. I can say this also, particularly of a number of occasions when he dropped into my room during the period when I was in charge of Secretary's Department and he was administratively under the control of the Secretary. Overall, Shri Bhandari has not been abl to settle down properly to the duties and responsibilities expected of him as the Press Relations Officer of the Bank and there is clearly no point in continuing him in the Bank's service. The proposal to seek the approval of the Committee of the Central Board to retire Shri Bhandari under the third proviso to Staff Regulations 26(1) may pleased be approved. The Memorandum to the Ccb will be got prepared in consultation with Pla so as to ensure that it is clearly brought out that his retirement is considered necessary in the public interest. It may be mentioned in this context that in the Fundamental Rules applicable to Government employees there is a clear provision in Fr 56 (j) that the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him the stipulated notice in writing or pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, if he is in Class I or Class Ii service or post, after he has attained the age of 50 years, and in any other case after he has attained the age of 55 years. This Rule has been used by Government to retire Government servants whose performance has inter alia not been of the required standard or efficiency. sd/- V. Visvanathan 9.7.1991"

(22) In her report dated July 6, 1991, the Joint Chief Manager had enclosed three annexures, Annexure I, Annexure Ii and Annexure Iii about the conduct of the petitioner, which are as under:- " Annexure -1 Incorrect Press Releases issued by the Press Relations Officer which placed the Bank in an embarrassing position. i) A press release was issued by Shri Bhandari on 24th June 1986 indicating that Shri T.K.K. Bhagvat has taken over as Secretary to the Central Board of the Reserve Bank and that Shri B. Ray has been posted as Chief Officer, DFC. The press release was issued by him without checking the concerned departments whether any such order has been issued to Shri Ray and it caused serious embarrassment all round as no such order had been issued by the Department of Administration. ii) Wrong statistics had been published in the R.B.I. News letter dated 31st October 1986 under 'Money, Banking & Price Trends'. Shri Bhandari did not take trouble to check correctness of the figures with Deap or Civil Procedure Code and published the statistics on the basis of information in the Press Conference. iii) In the Rbi News letter dated 28th February 1990 Shri Bhandari published following news item. Bom Cmd "Dr. A.C. Shaha has been appointed as Chairman and Managing Director of Bank of Baroda. Before his elevation he was Executive Director of the Bank. He succeeds Shri Premjit Singh who resigned recently in unusual circumstances following the disputed takeover of L & T by the Ambani Group". Since the later part of the news item was uncalled for and undesirable, Governor was very much annoyed with Shri Bhandari and he was summoned and cautioned by the Governor. iv) In the Rbi News letter dated 15.3.1990 the P.R.O. had given incorrect dates in respect of the Senior Officers taking over charge in Ahmedabad and Madras." Annexure - Ii Instances when the Press Relations Officer was asked to stay back in the Office in connection with issue of a Press Release but he expressed inability to do so or actually disobeyed the instructions. i) Shri Bhandari was asked by Chief Officer, Iecd recently to stay in the Office after office hours for release of an important press note. However, he did not listen to Chief Officer, IECD. ii) In another case, Executive Director (VV) asked Shri Bhandari to wait for some time after office hours in connection with an urgent press note, to be released but Shri Bhandari did not obey her orders. He left office immediately and went home, and had to be summoned back by ED(T). There are several such instances on record with ED(T) which have not been tabulated here. Annexure - Iii Instances where the Press Relations Officer has ignored or flouted Office procedures on different administrative matters 1. Visit to West Germany: Immediately after his joining the Bank within 3 months Shri Bhandari undertook tour to Germany in May 1985 without obtaining Bank's permission. While he was on official tour to Delhi he discussed the matter with Executive Director (H) on phone and sought for the permission to visit West Germany on the invitation extended by the D.A. Foundation. He was specifically advised that a decision will be conveyed to the Manager, New Delhi and he should contact him in the matter. However, Shri Bhandari did not wait for the Bank's decision nor did he contact Manager, New Delhi and proceeded on tour taking the Bank's permission for granted. The matter was viewed seriously and it was recorded by DG(G) at that time that any employee serving in an institution must conduct himself in disciplined manners and if we do not take any action against Shri Bhandari it will encourage indiscipline. On return from abroad, an explanation in the matter was called for from Shri Bhandari which was far from satisfactory. Over and above he requested in the said letter that he may be treated as on duty from 13th to 15th May 1985 as during that period he discussed some matters with the German Bank. This request of course, was not acceded to. However, since Shri Bhandari expressed his regrets the matter was left there. 2. In August 1985 Shri Bhandari put up a note to ED(H)/DG(R) stating that Governor had approved his proposal to make a trip to New Delhi in connection with a meeting to be held by Governor with economic editors. DG(R)'s remarks on this note were as follows :- "I talked to Governor. Shri Bhandari may go to Delhi. However, he should have mentioned to Governor about having made the request to go to Delhi to ED(H). In fact, Governor was annoyed that Shri Bhandari had not mentioned the fact that a request had been made to ED(H) and that ED(H) was not quite in favor." 3. In November 1985, Shri Bhandari wrote an article in the 'Sunday Observer' entitled "High hopes on Rajiv's Japan visit". He neither obtained the Bank's permission for writing the article nor did he inform the Bank about it. The article in question written by Shri Bhandari deals with statistical information on trade and international collaborations and even go so far as to suggest what stand the Prime Minister should take with regard to trade arrangement. On enquiry it was revealed that Shri Bhandari had contributed 9 other articles to the press without obtaining the Bank's permission. Apart from the fact that he has acted in violation of Staff Regulations, such action on his part could place the Bank in an embarrassing situation should his connection with the Bank be known. On this occasion again Shri Bhandari regretted having transgressed the Bank's rules and therefore no disciplinary action was taken against him. He was, however, advised Bank's displeasure about his action. 4. In March 1986 Shri Bhandari was invited to attend the Managers' Conference which was chaired by the Governor and participate in its deliberations. Shri Bhandari, however, being unhappy about his sitting arrangement disassociated himself with the Conference half way. He wrote a letter thereafter to Chief Officer, Ppd, saying that his placement in the Conference indicated on the part of Ppd, that he had had no worthwhile role to play in the deliberations and he felt that he would be able to utilise his .time more constructively by attending to the work of his Division. On the said letterDG(R) recorded that this was not the kind of response expected of an Officer. Shri Bhandari was advised to conduct himself in a manner befitting a senior officer of the Bank. 5. Shri Bhandari proceeded on leave without handing over the set of keys to the Office. The irregularity was brought to his notice and he was advised that as an Officer of the Bank he should get acquainted with the rules and procedures of the Bank and it is not for the office to keep drawing his attention to them each time. He was also advised to strictly adhere to office rules and procedures.