Reserve Bank Of India 2 Ors, ... vs M. Rajeswari, Hyderabad
2022 Latest Caselaw 1055 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                           AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                     WRIT APPEAL No.634 of 2010


JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)



     The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated

06.07.2010 passed in W.P.No.5575 of 2005.

     The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

respondent - employee was serving with Reserve Bank of India

and while in service, she was subjected to disciplinary

proceedings and a charge sheet was issued on 04.05.2004 for

stealing the currency (Rs.100/- x 6 pieces = Rs.600/-) during

the examination of notes tendered by the State Bank of

Hyderabad. The employee was subjected to frisking and the

notes were recovered from her. She came with an excuse that it

is her personal money and she took it to the note examination

section on 02.04.2004. The employee also took a stand that the

shortage of Rs.600/- in the note examination section is only a

co-incidence and the money found on her body belongs to her.

The disciplinary authority, not being satisfied with the reply,

initiated an enquiry in terms of Regulation 47-3 of the Reserve

Bank of India Staff Regulations, 1940 and a report was

submitted in the matter holding the employee guilty of the

misconduct. Copy of enquiry report was also submitted to her

and thereafter the disciplinary authority has inflicted

punishment of dismissal from service. Being aggrieved by the

order dated 26.08.2004, dismissing her from service, an appeal

was preferred and the appeal was also dismissed on

07.03.2005. The employee came up before this Court stating

that she has put in 20 years of service and the punishment of

dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the

misconduct and therefore, the punishment be set aside. The

learned Single Judge interfered with the quantum of

punishment even though he has held that no procedural

irregularity has taken place in departmental enquiry and there

is no violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and

there is nothing wrong in the domestic enquiry. He has

interfered only in respect of quantum of punishment keeping in

view the 20 years of service put in by the employee.

Learned counsel for the Reserve Bank of India has argued

before this Court and his contention is that the employee was

serving with Reserve Bank of India, she was daily handling cash

as she was working in cash chest and whether the money

involved is six lakhs or six hundred, it does not make any

difference and in case of a banker, the punishment in such case

has to be termination of service or removal/dismissal from

service. He has placed reliance on the judgments delivered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India

and others vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde1 and Divisional

Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) vs. A.T. Mane2.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the employee has

argued before this Court that the punishment is certainly

disproportionate to the guilt of the employee and therefore, the

learned Single Judge was justified in interfering with the

quantum of punishment. He has also stated that the

respondent-employee is 60 years of age and no purpose is going

to be served by interfering with the order passed by the learned

Single Judge.

This Court has carefully gone through the entire record

and in the present case, the issue was in respect of a banker,

who was in-charge of the examination section where there was a

regular cash flow and examination of notes used to take place.

The respondent - employee was caught red handed in keeping

Rs.600/- inside her clothes and her misconduct came to light

only when she was subjected to frisking. There was a deficit of

(2006) 7 SCC 212

(2005) 3 SCC 254

Rs.600/- in the cash chest and the same was recovered from

the respondent-employee. The video clip also established that

the employee in question has kept the cash inside her clothes

and in those circumstances, as it was an open and shut case,

the punishment of dismissal was inflicted. In State Bank of

India and others (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

paragraph 21 has held as under:

"21. Confronted with the facts and the position of law, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that leniency may be shown to the respondent having regard to long years of service rendered by the respondent to the Bank. We are unable to countenance such submission. As already said, the respondent being a bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. The respondent was a Manager of the Bank and it needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer so that the confidence of the public/depositors is not impaired. It is for this reason that when a bank officer commits misconduct, as in the present case, for his personal ends and against the interest of the bank and the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and he does not deserve to be dealt with leniently."

In the light of the aforesaid judgment, as the employee in

question was serving with Reserve Bank of India, the order

passed by the learned Single Judge in interfering with the

quantum of punishment deserves to be set aside and is

accordingly, set aside.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 07.03.2022 ES