P D GUPTA Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dt. 24-9-76 of dismissal from service as a result of departmental enquiry in terms of Reg. 43(l)(e) of the Regulations as .also appellate order dt.28.4.77, whereby petitioner was informed that his appeal has been considered by the Committee of the Central Board and has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner was employed in the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi as Assistant Treasurer. At the relevant time he was incharge of "Note Examination" Section D. The following irregularities were noticed: (1) certification of defective/mutilated notes as "entire" by the petitioner, though they were not entire and therefore, passable by him; (2) returning of defective/mutilated notes taken out from the tender of the Syndicate Bank to the representative of the said Bank without ensuring that they were branded with "mutilated payment refused" stamp; (3) acceptance of mutilated/defective notes for passing directly from the Coin/Note Examiner, instead of from the Group Supervisor and (4) substituting or being a party to the substitution of 187 defective/mutilated notes for good notes in the tender of the Syndicate Bank. Asa consequence of the irregularities noticed the petitioner was placed under suspension and on 14.1.75 a charge-sheet under Regulation 47 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, charging him on all the aforesaid four irregularities was issued. The charge-sheet was more or less in terms of the jrregulararites mentioned above. On consideration of the representation received from the petitioner the departmental enquiry was conducted by the Manager, New Delhi Office, to whom the power was delegated by the Competent Authority. The Enquiry Officer on consideration of the entire material found all the four charges as proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority served a notice to show cause as to why the order of dismissal be not passed against the petitioner. Again on consideration of the reply and the entire material the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal. As already indicated the petitioner filed an appeal which was considered by the Committee and was dismissed. The order of dismissal and the appeal was communicated to the petitioner by the Personnel Manager on 28.4.1977.

(3.) Before I deal with the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner it would be useful to mention that three other employees of the Bank, namely, S/Shri Subhash Chander, A.L. Gupta and Bajaj were also charge-sheeted for the same transaction and the Disciplinary Authority had imposed punishments on those employees but none of them was dismissed from service. Charge-sheet served on Subhasb Chander is exactly the same as of the petitioner. I shall deal with the effect of the findings in the case of Shri Subhash Chander at the relevant stage.