BABLU DAS Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The entire disciplinary proceeding starting from the issuance of charge sheet dated 7th September, 2016, the enquiry report dated 9th January, 2017, the second show cause notice dated 14th February, 2017, the final order dated 7th April, 2017 passed by the competent authority whereby the substantive pay of the petitioner has been reduced by four stages for two years with effect of withholding the increments in the intervening period and postponement of future increment in terms of Rules 47(a)(c) read with Regulation 47(a)(b) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff Regulations), 1948 and the order of the appellate authority dated 31st January, 2018 confirming the order of the disciplinary authority are under challenge in the instant writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed in the Reserve Bank of India under died-in- harness category on 1st. November 1988. While the petitioner was posted as the Assistant Manager, Department of Protocol and Security a show cause notice was issued on 23rd. August, 2016 which was received by him on 26th August, 2016 wherein the petitioner was advised to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings will not be initiated against him in terms of the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff Regulations), 1948. The petitioner was to reply within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. It was mentioned that if the reply was found to be not tenable then disciplinary proceedings would follow. The petitioner replied to the said show cause. As the reply was found to be not tenable a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner on September 7, 2016. The charges against the petitioner were set out in the said charge sheet.

(3.) The documents that were forwarded to the petitioner contained the complaint note of the Director, Department of Economic and Policy Research, Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata Regional Office. In the said complaint it was mentioned that the petitioner had become a security threat to the staff and officers working in the department. He demonstrated highly objectionable act of perversion for which the lady staff feels extremely uncomfortable to work in the department. He displayed objectionable pictures on his desk. He changed his dress openly in the department. He threatened his fellow colleagues to drag them to court on the slightest pretext. He displayed his undergarments on his desk. He made baseless allegations against young summer lady intern who was working with the head of the department and assistant advisor. He engaged in shouting and quarrelling with the staff using filthy and abusive languages. He refused to work citing health problems. He was not available at the desk for long hours. On one occasion he left office without informing anybody and kept the keys of the cupboard locked in the desk. To trace the keys during the closing hours he was called over the phone but he did not pick up the phone. He was technically incompetent and totally unfit to work in the research department. He cannot be relied on for doing administrative work. He cannot be used for works giving his objectionable misconduct. He spoiled the work environment, disturbed peace and demoralised colleagues and staff. He was extremely difficult to work with. He was counselled many times to change his conduct by the head of the department. Despite warning from the head of the department he continued with his misconduct.