Shri Ishwari Prasad vs Reserve Bank Of India
2001 Latest Caselaw 212 Del

ORDER

Mr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. As the facts and issues involved in these writ petitions are similar, I propose to dispose of both the writ petitions by this common judgment/order.

2. While the petitioners were working with respondent No. 1 charge sheets were issued to them in terms of regulations 47 of RBI Staff Regulations, 1948. Replies to the aforesaid charge sheets were filed by the petitioners which wee found to be not satisfactory and departmental enquiries were conducted against the petitioners. On completition of the enquiry proceedings the enquiry officer submitted his report finding the petitioners guilty of the charges and show cause notices were issued to the petitioners, proposing to impose on the petitioners penalty of reducing their basic pay by four stages. On receipt of the aforesaid notices replies thereto were submitted and thereafter on 27.3.1996 orders of punishment against the petitioners were passed reducing the petitioners by three stages. It was also ordered that the reduction shall have the effect of postponing their future increments in the substantive grades.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners filed appeals before the Appellate Authority, and upon going through eh appeals the Appellate Authority found that the order of the Disciplinary Authority was justified on the facts and circumstances of the case and also found that the punishment awarded to the petitioners could not be termed as severe or excessive and thereupon rejected the appeals. Being aggrieved by the said orders the present petitions have been preferred in this Court.

4. Mr. Saini appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that there is violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as out of the nine Enquiry Officers appointed by the respondents during the course of department enquiries conducted against the petitioners four were legally trained and qualified persons and therefore, rejection of the plea of the petitioners to be represented by legally trained person violated the principles of natural justice. It was also submitted that the incident alleged against the petitioners was of the year 1979 and the punishment was awarded only in the year 1996 whereas the petitioners against whom criminal cases were also instituted stood acquitted in the year 1986 and therefore, the punishment awarded to the petitioners is liable to be set aside and quashed in view of the fact that in the criminal case the petitioners stood acquitted. He also submitted that there is a long delay in completion of the departmental proceedings, for the incident was of 1979 and that although the charge sheet was issued in the year 1979 the punishment was awarded in 1996 which is even after the acquittal of the petitioners in the criminal case. He also submitted that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority regularising the period of suspension is illegal, for the said order of suspension although revoked at one stage could not have been reissued.

5. Mr. Gopal

Subramaniam, Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 however, refuted the submissions and allegations made on hehalf of the petitioners and submitted that except for Mr. J.C. Gupta, none of the Enquiry Officers appointed to conduct the departmental enquiry was legally trained person. He also brought to my notice that during the period when aforesaid Mr. J.C. Gupta acted as the Enquiry Officer no progress was made in the departmental proceedings and that all effective steps in the departmental proceedings were taken and witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officers who were not legally trained persons. He also stated that the petitioners themselves are responsible for the delay in completion of the disciplinary proceedings and in support of his contention he brought to my notice various orders passed by the Enquiry Officer during the departmental proceedings. He further submitted that the criminal cases and the departmental proceedings stand on different footing and the standard of proof required in a criminal case and a departmental proceedings is also distinct and separate and therefore, they cannot be equated. So far the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the order of suspension and regularisation thereof is concerned, he submitted that a discretion is vested on the disciplinary authority to pass an order after completion of departmental proceedings with regard to period of suspension and therefore, there is no illegality in the said order.

6. The allegation that four out of nine Enquiry Officers appointed by the respondent at various times during the course of the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioners is not supported by records. It is disclosed from the said records that only Mr. J.C. Gupta who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer was an Assistant Legal Advisor and therefore, a legally trained person. However, on the representation of the Petitioners the said Enquiry Officer was changed and thereafter the enquiry proceedings were conducted by other Enquiry Officers and the said Enquiry Officer who actually conducted the departmental proceedings were not legally trained persons. Therefore, no grievance could be made by the petitioners as against the action of the respondents in refusing to allow the petitioners to be represented through practicing lawyer. The petitioners were allowed to be defended by a representative of their choice nominated by the registered trade union and therefore, no prejudice was caused to petitioners.

7. The next contention of the petitioners is that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is illegal in view of their acquittal by the criminal court. So far as this contention is concerned, it is disclosed from the record that the departmental proceedings were instituted against the petitioners for their act of gross misconduct of stealing punched packets of notes of Rs. 100/- denomination which were meant to be sent to the incinerator for destruction, which was determental to the interest of the bank. Evidence was adduced in the said departmental proceedings in support of the allegations made in the charge sheets and on conclusion of the same the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 19.6.1995 coming to the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioners stood proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The Disciplinary Authority considered the report of the Enquiry officer and by his order dated 15.11.1995 agreed with the conclusion of the enquiry Officer and proposed a tentative penalty of reduction of substantive pay of the petitioners by 4 stages. The Disciplinary Authority on consideration of the evidence on record and the replies submitted, passed an order taking a lenient view of the matter, ordered for reduction of the pay petitioners by three stages with postponement of increments. The Disciplinary Authority also ordered that suspension of the petitioners from 5.5.1979 to 9.2.1979 be regularised by grant of extraordinary leave without pay and allowances not counting for increments and also not to be counted as qualifying services for the purpose of increments and pension.

8. It is true that in the criminal cases instituted against the petitioners the petitioners were discharged on the ground that besides disclosure statement the prosecution had failed to furnish any supporting material or evidence to prove prima facie the guilt of the petitioners. However, it is settled law that the scope of the departmental proceedings is quite different from the scope of the criminal proceedings. The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is also different from what is required in a criminal case. While in departmental proceedings standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities whereas in the criminal case the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the departmental proceedings should also have been quashed in view of their acquittal in the criminal case cannot be accepted.

9. The impugned order is also challenged on the ground that there is along delay in completion was drawn to the enquiry proceedings. The reasons for delay in completion of the departmental proceedings have been stated also in the counter affidavit and the same is also disclosed from the record of the departmental proceedings. The enquiry proceedings got delayed not only because the Enquiry Officer had to be changed by the respondents but also for the fact the petitioners were absent on different dates and therefore, the petitioners are also responsible for the delay caused in completion of the departmental proceedings. On this issue also I find no merit in the submissions of the counsel appearing for the petitioners.

10. Regarding the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority regularising the period of suspension, the regulation provides that such an order could be passed by the Disciplinary Authority as to how the period of suspension should be treated and regularised. The said order is possed in accordance with the said provisions and taking notice of the facts and circumstances of the case, the said submission is also found to be without merit.

11. In the result, these petitions have no merit and are dismissed accordingly.