M. Nagaraj vs Reserve Bank of India and Others

N.K. Jain, C.J.—These writ appeals are filed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 15-12-2000 passed in W.P. No. 556 of 1994 connected with W.P. No. 3495 of 1994.

Since the facts in both the appeals are common and identical, as agreed, they are heard together.

It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts. The necessary and relevant facts are, appellant-M. Nagaraj in W.A. No. 646 of 2001 joined the services of Reserve Bank of India, on 1-7-1963 as a Clerk, Grade II and was promoted as Staff Officer in Grade ''A'' in the year 1975. He was confirmed on 1-10-1978 and continued to work in the said post, till he was kept under suspension by the 2nd respondent by his order dated 4-7- 1979, in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. The appellant Ramachandra Saale in W.A. No. 687 of 2001, during the relevant point of time was working in the 1st respondent-Bank as Staff Officer, Grade ''A''. He was also kept under suspension by the Manager of the respondent-Bank by order dated 24-9-1983.

The appellants-petitioners were served with the charge memo dated 1-4-1985 containing charges of misconduct as Staff Officers in verification section and also as representatives of the Currency Officer at the incinerator of the office during the period 1977 to 1979. It was also specified in the charge memo that the appellants-petitioners had acted in a negligent and inefficient manner and thereby caused loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,20,000/-. The appellants-petitioners by their replies dated 23-4-1985 and 8-4-1985 respectively denied the allegations made against them. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered, appointed one V.V. Nayak (3rd respondent in W.A. No. 646 of 2001} as Enquiry Officer along with Mohd. Shafi Ahmed as the Presenting Officer. After receipt of the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 17-10-1988 and the records of the proceedings and after considering the evidence, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that charges levelled against the appellants-petitioners were established and proved. As such it issued show-cause notice along with its finding and the enquiry report on 26-12-1990. Considering their replies dated 1-2-1991 and 7-2-1991, the authority not being satisfied with the explanations, imposed punishment of dismissal from service in terms of clause (e) of sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 47 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 vide order dated 7-1-1993. Against that order, the appellants-petitioners appealed to the Appellate Authority as provided under Regulations 48 and 49 of the Regulations 1948. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 9-11-1993 rejected the appeals. Being aggrieved, the appellants-petitioners filed W.P. Nos. 556 and 3495 of 1994. The learned Single Judge after considering the counter and the case-law on the point, rejected all the contentions of the appellants-petitioners and dismissed the writ petitions by an elaborate order dated 15-12-2000. Hence, these writ appeals.

The contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants-petitioners are, (a) The charge memo issued is vague and ambiguous without sufficient details of negligence; (b) Copy of statement of imputation was not furnished to the appellants-petitioners; (c) As the copy of the statement of K.M. Mathew was not supplied during the enquiry proceedings. they were not in a position to cross-examine the Bank''s witnesses, and therefore, the proceedings are vitiated; (d) The learned Single Judge erred in rejecting all the contentions, and therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, Sri Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the charges are not vague as they clearly mention regarding negligence. It is stated that the appellants during the period 1977-79 did not supervise but acted negligently, on account of which the mazdoors, instead of removing non-assumable and defaced notes of Rs. 100/- denomination for destruction, substituted the same for packets of good currency notes meant for reissuance. Thereby the appellants have acted detrimental to the interest of the Bank and caused pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs. 2,20,000/- to the Bank. It is stated that after giving notice to everybody, KM. Mathew was called, but the appellants-petitioners failed to cross-examine even though on earlier occasion, the case was adjourned. The learned Counsel further submits that the said witness has only narrated the incident that such thing has happened during that period, and so question of prejudice does not arise and therefore the learned Single Judge was right in not interfering with the orders of the respective authorities. It is also stated that as matter of fact, they did not say anything that the copy has not been furnished to them nor any grievance was made that no copy was furnished to them at any point of time or even when the 2nd show-cause notice was issued. The argument is nothing but an afterthought. Therefore, on this ground the appellants cannot make a new case and the order of the learned Single Judge needs no interference.

No doubt, one cannot be punished without giving opportunity. So also the Enquiry Officer cannot make use of a document or material without supplying a copy of the same. It is also settled that this Court, not being a Court of appeal, cannot reappreciate the evidence unless there is violation of any procedural rule or the order is mala fide, however each case depends upon the facts of its own.

Considering the argument that the charge is vague, the facts of the case reveal that the charge pertains to negligence committed during 1977-79. The appellants were admittedly working in the respondent-Bank during that period. Nothing has been placed on record to show that they were not working at that point of time. Nor it has been stated specifically that it had taken place during the period when they were not in the verification section. So, when the misconduct was committed, at that time, the appellants were working as Staff Officers in the verification section and were aware of the charge and hence the negligence part as per the charge has been proved. Therefore, the argument that the charge is vague is not tenable. The argument about calling Mathew and non-supply of copy of statement of Mathew cannot be agitated at this stage. Firstly, the appellants were fully aware and after due notice to all, Mathew was called and as the facts culled out, copy of statement of Mathew was given and time was granted for cross-examination, but the appellants have not cross-examined him at any point of time despite opportunity being given. As such it cannot be said that no opportunity was given nor any prejudice has been shown. That apart, Mathew has only placed the fact of the so-called incident of the alleged period and the fact that during that period, the appellants were in charge and on account of their negligence, the notes of Rs. 100/- denomination meant for destruction were put into circulation causing loss to the Bank, are proved facts. Therefore, the argument regarding non-supply of copy of statement and not giving opportunity is not tenable as stated. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of material has come to the conclusion that the appellants-petitioners were negligent and charge is proved. Once the charge of negligence has been proved, whereby the notes of Rs. 1007-denomination, instead of destruction, were put to circulation and caused loss to the Bank, the dismissal of the appellants cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved charge. So far as the argument that the learned Single Judge has wrongly relied on the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Vishwa Mohan, is concerned, it is also not helpful in the facts of the given case. The learned Counsel has not been able to satisfy us that there is any procedural error in holding the enquiry and any perversity in the finding on the impugned orders passed by authorities below. No other point was pressed. On consideration, we find the learned Single Judge by an elaborate order has not interfered. In view of what we have discussed, we find no error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge so as to call for any interference.

The writ appeals are dismissed.