RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Vs. C L TOORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is filed by the Reserve Bank of India against the judgment and order of High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur dated 12-12-2001 directing the appellant to consider respondent No. 1 for promotion to grade-D ignoring the fact that a high power Selection Board presided by a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court had found the respondent unsuitable for selection to the said grade.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : On 1-10-1988, the Currency Officer of the appellant asked respondent No. 1 who was Assistant Currency Officer in Grade-C to look after, on 3-10-1988, the duties of M. S. Janagal, Assistant Currency Officer (Grade-B), who had proceeded suddenly on casual leave. It is the case of the appellant that respondent No. 1 herein refused to comply with the orders of the Currency Officer stating that he cannot be asked to discharge the functions of Grade-B Officer. Accordingly, the said respondent was charge-sheeted on 1-12-1989 for insubordination under Regulation 32 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Regulations"). In the preliminary enquiry preceding the charge-sheet, the said respondent in reply to show-cause notice stated that on 1-10-1988, seven Grade-B Officers were present on duty and only one of them Mr. M. S. Janagal had applied for casual leave; that he had never operated the vault in the past; that vault duties were entrusted to Grade-B Officers and as such, except in emergency, a Grade-C Officer was entrusted with such duties and, therefore, he did not intend insubordination. In fact, he pointed out that on 3-10-1988, he did all the work of Claims Department except opening and closing of vault. By his reply to show-cause notice, he further pointed out that he was under mental agony on that day in the background enumerated in para 2 of his reply to the show-cause notice. The appellant, however, did not accept the explanation of the respondent. In the meantime, the appellant undertook selection process in the matter of promotions of Officers from Grade-C to Grade-D. Respondent No. 1 herein was one of the candidates. The appellant constituted a high power Selection Board presided by Mr. Justice A. S. Ginwala, a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court. The Selection Board held several meetings at Calcutta, New Delhi, Bombay and Bangalore, as promotions were to be made at all-India level. The Selection Board recommended candidates for promotion in terms of the executive policy formulated by the Management in 1983 and which was in existence in 1989. Under the said policy, a candidate had to secure in all 170 marks out of 300 for empanelment for promotion to Grade-D. Respondent No. 1 herein secured 162 marks and consequently he failed to qualify. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the said respondent was interviewed at New Delhi center on 2-6-1989, wherein he was successful but overall he did not secure 170 marks, hence not found suitable for the panel year 1989. On 23-10-1990, he filed Writ Petition No. 5483 of 1990 challenging the charge-sheet and his non-selection. During the pendency of the writ petition, disciplinary enquiry was completed and the competent authority imposed the minor penalty of lowering his substantive pay by one stage permanently, against which he filed departmental appeal, which was also rejected on 4-8-1994. Respondent No. 1 filed an amendment application to the writ petition challenging the enquiry proceedings as well as the order of punishment. By impugned judgment, the writ petition was allowed on the ground that the charge of insubordination was not proved. The High Court also found fault with the non-selection of respondent No. 1 on the ground that the procedure and the criteria adopted by the Selection Board was improper. It doubted the decision of the Selection Board in awarding only 162 marks on the ground that the said respondent had obtained the requisite 32 marks in the interview but he was given only 130 marks on performance appraisal. In the circumstances, the entire selection was set aside and the appellants were directed to reframe selection and consider the said respondent for promotion to scale-D from 1989. Aggrieved, the Reserve Bank of India has come to this Court by way of this appeal.

(3.) Two issues arise for determination, firstly, whether the appellant was justified in imposing the above penalty of lowering the substantive pay of the respondent by one stage permanently; and secondly, whether the High Court was right in setting aside the entire selection and directing the appellant to promote respondent No. 1 to scale-D w.e.f. 1989.