Partly allowed

M. Rajeswari, v. Reserve Bank of India

Telangana HC6 Jul 2010WP/5575/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court modified an order of dismissal from service imposed on an RBI employee for alleged pilferage of Rs.600, treating it instead as compulsory retirement, finding the original punishment disproportionate given her 20 years of service and lack of actual loss to the Bank.

What did the court decide?

The order of dismissal dated 26.8.2004 was treated as an order of compulsory retirement; the petitioner was to be treated as compulsorily retired as on the date of the dismissal order.

M. Rajeswari, Vs Reserve Bank of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶2

W.P.No.5575 of 2005

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is directed against the order of punishment of dismissal dated 26.8.2004 in File No.DAPM.No.1408/07.08.63/20042005 as confirmed by the appellate authority vide its order dated 7.3.2005 and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits including arrears of wages etc.

¶5

According to the petitioner, she joined the service of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 1984 and worked for more than 20 years and she was never subjected to any disciplinary proceedings. While that being so, the petitioner was issued with charge sheet No.13/2003-04 dated 4.5.2004 alleging that she has surreptiously pilfered six pieces of Rs.100 denomination on 2.4.2004 during the course of examination of notes tendered by State Bank of Hyderabad, Kancherlapalem branch when she was subjected to frisking at the time when she came out from the Note Examination Section on 2.4.2004. Petitioner submitted explanation denying the charge and stated that the money of Rs.600/- was her personal money which she has inadvertently carried into the note examination section on 2.4.2004 and the shortage of Rs.600/- in the note examination section is only co-incidence and since the money found on her body belongs to her. According to the petitioner, she has not committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet. However, the disciplinary authority having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the charge in terms of Regulation 473 of the Reserve Bank of India Staff Regulations, 1940. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report dated 26.6.2004 while recording a

¶6

finding that the charge leveled against the petitioner stood proved and thus she has acted detrimental to the interest of the Bank and thereby committed an act of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 47-1 of the Regulations. Petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 19.7.2004 stating that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are not correct and the proposed disciplinary action may be dropped. However, the disciplinary authority through impugned proceedings dated 26.8.2004 passed orders dismissing the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority and the appeal was also dismissed by order dated 7.3.2005. According to the petitioner, neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority have applied their mind to the fact situation of the matter and for the misconduct not proved, punishment of removal has been imposed. According to the petitioner, she had put in an unblemished record of service of 20 years and the punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate and apart from that the disciplinary action itself is baseless and she has not committed any misconduct at all. According to her, the counting of notes in the strong room was carried out by another Peon viz. Anasuya and petitioner cannot be held responsible for the missing cash in the note examination section and to categorize the money on her person as the money that is found missing in the note examination section. There has been no legal evidence before the enquiry officer to conclude that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. In the note examination section, there are movie cameras and none of those cameras have spotted the petitioner as hiding out the money from the note examination section. The appellate authority has confirmed the order of disciplinary authority in dismissing the petitioner from service. Hence this writ petition.

¶7

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stated that the

¶8

petitioner has committed pilferage of currency notes in the note examination section and in fact, no evidence was let in by the petitioner contrary to the evidence adduced by the Bank. The charges are proved in full and the video clippings also discloses that the petitioner has committed misconduct. In the absence of any other evidence, there was no other option for the enquiry officer to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges and after completing all the formalities, since the offence committed by the petitioner was grave in nature and the action was unbecoming of an officer of the Bank, she was rightly dismissed from service and the appeal filed by her was considered in detail and the appellate authority. Neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority have committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶9

The learned senior counsel Sri Vedula Venkataramana appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that firstly the enquiry conducted was one sided. Neither the petitioner was given opportunity to cross-examine the witness nor lead any of her witness or to appoint the co-worker to defend her. All went one sided and the enquiry officer gave a finding holding petitioner guilty of charges. Of course, petitioner being innocent, she did not lead any evidence and it was not proper on the part of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority to hold the petitioner guilty of charges. Assuming that the charges are proved, there was no necessity of imposing such a drastic punishment of dismissal from service. Apart from violation of principles of natural justice, the order passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority is not in proportion to that of the misconduct proved against the petitioner.

¶10

Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondents Sri

¶11

M.P.Ugle supported the order passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority and stated that this being a grave misconduct, and in the absence of any evidence let in by the petitioner, there was no other option for the respondents except to hold the petitioner guilty of charges and impose punishment of dismissal from service. To impress upon the Court, the learned counsel relied upon the judgments in STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. RAMESH DINKAR PUNDE^[1] a n d DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T.MANE^[2] and submitted that whether the money involved is Rs.600/- or Rs.6.00 lakhs, it makes no difference. Once the charge is proved, the question of continuing the petitioner in any capacity or imposing lesser punishment to that of dismissal from service does not arise.

¶12

I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned orders and other material made available on record.

¶13

Admittedly, this is a case where the petitioner had rendered 20 long years of unblemished service. The allegation of the respondent is that six pieces of Rs.100 denomination currency notes were found on her body and there was a shortage of six pieces of Rs.100 denomination, therefore it tallied. Further, as per the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the video clippings have shown that the petitioner is hiding currency notes. This is a case where the petitioner had not let in any evidence nor she has appointed any representative to defend herself. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any thing wrong in the domestic enquiry. May be, it all one sided, but that is her own making. Therefore, it cannot be said that the charges framed against the petitioner were not proved and there is no sufficient evidence to hold her guilty. But this is a case where it is definitely needs to be examined as to proportionately of the

¶14

punishment imposed on the petitioner. Admittedly, petitioner has rendered 20 long years of unblemished service. As on that date, no loss was caused to the Bank. Under those circumstances, I am of the view that the punishment of dismissal from service is definitely disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. The respondents could have imposed any other lesser punishment than that of dismissal/removal from service. In a case of this nature, generally speaking the matter needs to be remanded to the disciplinary authority for taking a fresh decision as to imposition of proper punishment. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the lis can be put to an end at this stage itself by imposing appropriate punishment since it is the first misconduct on the part of the petitioner and the amount involved was meager and no loss was caused to the Bank.

¶15

In the result, the impugned orders are modified treating the order of dismissal dated 26.8.2004 as to that of order of compulsory retirement and the petitioner shall be extended all monetary benefits treating that she has retired from service of the Bank compulsorily as on the date of dismissal order.

¶16

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.

¶17

C.V.RAMULU, J

¶18

Date: 6.7.2010. DA

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶20

W.P.No.5575 of 2005

¶21

6.7.2010

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶24

W.P.No.5575 of 2005

¶25

Date: 6^th July, 2010

¶26

Between: M.Rajeswari .. Petitioner And Reserve Bank of India, rep. by its Chairman, Mumbai and others.

¶27

.. Respondents

¶28

[1] (2006) 7 SCC 212 [2] (2005) 3 SCC 254

M. Rajeswari, v. Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Rajeswari, v. Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranganna Vs Adithyanath das, The Secretary to Government

M. Ramu Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

J.Mohan Reddy, Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of Ap Ltd.

K. Trinadha Rao, Vs The A.P. State Housng Corporation Limited

Gade Mamilayya Vs Gade Ramalingeswara Rao

Sivareddy Sumathi, Vs Padella Venkata Subbareddy