JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---The petitioner, who is an employee of Union Bank of India, in this writ petition challenges the order of discharge from the service as Head Cashier-cum-Clerk passed against him by the respondent No. 2 on 21-10-1989, after holding Disciplinary Enquiry, which was conducted against the petitioner. An appeal, filed against that order also failed by passing an order by the appellate authority on 22-1-1990. The petitioner is an employee of the Union Bank of India, which is a nationalised Bank. 2. The following charges of mis-conduct have been framed against the petitioner :-- (i) Unauthorised disclosure of information regarding the business/affairs of the Bank or any of its customers or any other person connected with the business of the Bank which is confidential or the disclosure of which is likely to be prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. (ii) Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. 3. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner has disclosed to public at large by publishing or getting published through his Advocate, Shri M.S. Udeshi in Navashakti Newspaper dated 23-12-1987, an incident regarding burning/destruction of a fake note of denomination of Rs. 100/- allegedly by Smt. A.H. Malesara, Branch Manager of Manickpur Branch, on 17-2-1987. It is also disclosed in the allegation that the petitioner got to publish in an earlier occasion through his Advocate Shri M.S. Udeshi, in Navashakti newspaper dated 3-2-1988 an incident regarding destruction of alleged counterfeit/fake note of Rs. 100/- denomination on 28-10-1986 at Manickpur Branch. It is also alleged that the petitioner has also got to publish through his Advocate M.S. Udeshi in The Indian Post Newspaper dated 22-12-1988 the alleged incident that his concerned superior officers of the bank had conveyed him indirectly not to precipitate the matter of having detected the counterfeit/fake note of Rs. 100/-, on 27-6-1988 at B.M.O. Branch of the Bank. 4. As disclosed from the charge-sheet and the statement of allegations, the imputation against the petitioner is that he had exposed to the public the destruction of a fake note of denomination of Rs. 100/- by certain officers of the bank, in violation of the fidelity and secrecy bond executed by him at the time of his appointment. Exh. 4. As disclosed from the charge-sheet and the statement of allegations, the imputation against the petitioner is that he had exposed to the public the destruction of a fake note of denomination of Rs. 100/- by certain officers of the bank, in violation of the fidelity and secrecy bond executed by him at the time of his appointment. Exh. 'E' annexed to the publication is the said Fidelity Bond which reads as follows :-- "I further declare that I will not communicate or allow to be communicated to any person not legally entitled thereto any information relating to the affairs of Union Bank of India or to the affairs of any person having any dealing with Union Bank of India; nor will I allow any such person to inspect or have access to any books or documents belonging to or in the possession of Union Bank of India and relating to the business of Union Bank of India or to the business of any person having any dealing with Union Bank of India". 5. Both the Enquiry Officers and the Appellate Authority had entered a finding that there was a destruction of fake note in the bank. It is necessary in this context to refer the findings of the Enquiry Officer, recorded after the enquiry, which he has summarised in his enquiry report. The findings read as follows :-- "Relying on the depositions made before me, documents produced by both the sides and the written arguments of the CSE, I now proceed to record my findings in the matter." From the oral and documentary evidence produced before me, the facts emerge as under :-- That Shri Mukane, CSE passed on the information to his Advocate Shri M.S. Udeshi about the incident of --- detection and alleged destruction of alleged fake note of Rs. 100/- by Smt. Malesara, Branch Manager, Manikpur Branch on 28-10-1986; alleged burning of fake note of Rs. 100/- on 17-2-1987 by Smt. Malesara, Branch Manager, Manikpur Branch in the premises of State Bank of India, Vasai Branch; alleged conveying by the superior officer of Shri Mukane not to pursue the matter of his detecting a fake note of Rs. 100/- on 27-6-1988 at B.M.O. That Shri Mukane through his Advocate, Shri M.S. Udeshi, published the following public notices; in Navashakti newspaper dated 23-12-87 public notice regarding the incident of 17-2-87 (Exh. 100/- on 27-6-1988 at B.M.O. That Shri Mukane through his Advocate, Shri M.S. Udeshi, published the following public notices; in Navashakti newspaper dated 23-12-87 public notice regarding the incident of 17-2-87 (Exh. M-2) in 'Navashakti' newspaper dated 3-2-1988 public notice regarding the incident dt. 28-10-1986 (Exh. M-3); in 'The Indian Post' Newspaper dated 22-12-1988 public notice regarding the incident of 27-6-1988 (Exh. M-5) That Shri Mukane was under suspension from 15-1-1987 to 22-4-1987. 6. From the facts as revealed from enquiry referred to above, it is clear that fake notes have been detected in the Bank and the same has been destructed. I am not concerned in the controversy involved in this case as to who detected and destructed the fake note. For the purpose of this writ petition it is enough that both the authorities have come to the conclusion that there was destruction of fake note in the bank contrary to the directions and norms issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It is discernible from the above fact that the destruction of note has been disclosed by the petitioner either by publishing in the newspaper or otherwise. He tried to defend his action that since the destruction of fake note is contrary to the instructions of the Reserve Bank of India, and also the instructions issued by the Union Bank of India, and that there is no prohibition in the declaration given by him in the bond, that such illegal things should not be communicated to others. 7. Thus, the question arise in this petition is whether the conduct of the petitioner, publishing or causing to publish factum of destruction of fake note, could be termed as gross misconduct, as alleged in the charge-sheet. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice a circular issued by the Union Bank of India, on 6th May, 1989, which includes a procedure that has to be followed by the employees of the Bank when they stumble upon the fake note during the business of the bank. In the said procedure it is made clear that in case a currency note is suspected to be forged is detected, it should be impounded by the prescribed officer of the concerned branch and stamped with the word "Forged" or the word "Forged" should be written on it in red ink in large block letters. In the said procedure it is made clear that in case a currency note is suspected to be forged is detected, it should be impounded by the prescribed officer of the concerned branch and stamped with the word "Forged" or the word "Forged" should be written on it in red ink in large block letters. He should also put his signature on the note and mention his designation and the name of the branch and the bank below his initials. It is also stated in the procedure that in case the bona fides of the presenter of the forged note are suspected, the prescribed officer may hand over to the police the note impounded by him as well as its presenter. However, if the prescribed officer is convinced that the presenter of the forged note has presented it in good faith, believing that it was genuine, he should impound the note in the manner indicated above and also take the name and the address of the presenter and his statement regarding the person from whom and the circumstances in which he had received the forged note. The prescribed officer then should send the forged note and the presenter's statement to the police for further enquiry. While forwarding the forged note, the police authorities should be advised that after their enquiry is over, they should send the note to the Currency Officer, R.B.I. under whose jurisdiction the concerned branch falls. A copy of this advice should be endorsed to the Currency Officer of the Reserve Bank of India. In case the forged note is inadvertently returned to the bank branch by Police authorities/Court after completion of their enquiry/after the final disposal of the case by the Court, the branch should ensure that the forged note is sent to the concerned Currency Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, for disposal. Proforma of the memorandum to be filled in by Police and other officers with instructions have also been enclosed along with the circular. 9. From bare reading of the circular it is clear an elaborate procedure has been laid down before the disposal of a fake note which should be done finally by the Currency Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, alone and none else. 9. From bare reading of the circular it is clear an elaborate procedure has been laid down before the disposal of a fake note which should be done finally by the Currency Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, alone and none else. It is only common sense that this cumbersome procedure has been adopted or issued by the Union Bank of India, for safeguarding the interest of the public. We have to visualise that single fake note alone will not be manufactured. A fake note in particular number would be manufactured in lakhs or crores. Therefore, whosoever come across of a fake note if he destroy the same, is definitely hampering or stultifying the further investigation about the counterfeit/fake note. In the aforesaid circular it is clearly noted that the disposal of the fake currency note is vested in the Currency Office of the Reserve Bank of India, after proper investigation is being carried out. Therefore, there is no doubt that if any destruction of a fake note be done otherwise than prescribed in the circular, he or she is not doing it in the interest of the public. Public interest definitely will hamper if the fake note is destructed, without following the instructions contained in the circular. He must take up the responsibility to cover up a criminal offence. Any person, even an Officer of the Bank has no authority to destroy the fake note. 10. As I noted earlier both the original and appellate authority have entered a finding that there was a destruction of the fake note by the officers of the Bank. The only allegations against the petitioner is that this illegal conduct of the officer has been exposed by the petitioner by publication to the newspaper. If such an illegality has been exposed by the petitioner, it should be treated as a service to the public. Because mis-deeds of any institution or any corrupt practice in any institution, normally could be exposed to the public only through a person inside the institution. An employee, who exposed the illegal or mis-deeds that is going on in the institution, the said employee cannot be penalised for exposing to public. According to me such officers are to be treated as devoted citizens who exposed the corruption in the institution he serves, to the public, particularly, if the institution is a public office. An employee, who exposed the illegal or mis-deeds that is going on in the institution, the said employee cannot be penalised for exposing to public. According to me such officers are to be treated as devoted citizens who exposed the corruption in the institution he serves, to the public, particularly, if the institution is a public office. If such an officer is held for mis-conduct then the public will be the ultimate sufferer because public will not be able to know what is happening in the corridor of the administration in the public institution. Therefore, any illegality or mis-deed committed by a superior officer, when exposed by an employee to the public, such an employee cannot be hauled up for a mis-conduct, even if it violates the bond executed by that officer. The secrecy of the administration that is, to be safeguarded not at the cost of the purity of the administration. Moreover, when we are confronted with position that which of the two, should prevail either secrecy or purity, then purity should always prevail upon secrecy. The Supreme Court in its judgment, in the case of (S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra and others)1, reported in 1980 Supp. Supreme Court Cases 53, in para 22 and 23 has laid down some principles of secrecy. In para 22 the Supreme Court observed that : "................ If secrecy of ballot instead ensuring free and fair elections is used, as is done in this case, to defeat the very public purpose for which it is enacted, to suppress a wrong coming to light and to protect a fraud on the election process or even to defend a crime, viz., forgery of ballot papers, this principle of secrecy of ballot will have to yield to the larger principle of free and fair elections". In para 23 it has further held that :-- "........... Secrecy of ballot though undoubtedly a vital principle for ensuring free and fair elections, it was enshrined in law to subserve the larger public interest, namely, purity of election, for ensuring free and fair election. The principle of secrecy of ballot cannot stand aloof or in isolation and in confrontation to the foundation of free and fair elections, viz., purity of election. The principle of secrecy of ballot cannot stand aloof or in isolation and in confrontation to the foundation of free and fair elections, viz., purity of election. They can co-exist but as stated earlier, where one is used to destroy the other, the first one must yield to principle of purity of election in larger public interest. In fact secrecy of ballot, a privilege of the voter, is not inviolable and may be waived by him as a responsible citizen of this country to ensure free and fair election and to unravel foul play". The above principle has also been subsequently laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of (A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar v. George Mascrene and others)2, reported in 1994 Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases 619. 11. The learned Counsel Shri Rele, appearing for the respondent, by persuasive argument contended that there is clear violation of the bond executed by the petitioner. If such officer is allowed to disclose some secret to be kept, it will be not in the interest of institution. He also submits that the petitioner's bona fide has to be tested to the repetition of the publication of the news about destruction of the currency notes. Petitioner had, according to the Counsel, maliciously caused the publication of this news item and on account of this malicious act by the petitioner, the concerned officer had to resign and go. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, no interferences is called for by this Court as the mis-conduct against the petitioner has been proved. 12. Adverting to the contention of the Counsel for the respondent, I fail to see any such allegation contained in the charge as has been framed in the charge memo. As I noted earlier, the only charge levelled against him is that he has disclosed secret in violation of the fidelity bond executed by him. If he can be accused of any false allegation levelled against any officer and on account of which that officer had to resign, in that case, a specific charge could have framed against the petitioner. I make it clear that this Court is very much concerned about the maintenance of the discipline of an institution. If any officer made any wild or false allegation against his fellow employee, he must be booked and punished after proper enquiry. I make it clear that this Court is very much concerned about the maintenance of the discipline of an institution. If any officer made any wild or false allegation against his fellow employee, he must be booked and punished after proper enquiry. But here in this case no such charge has been framed against the petitioner. The only charge, that was disclosed is that the destruction of the note was exposed to public through newspaper. In these circumstances, I further make it clear that if from the record, it is possible for the bank to frame any other charges against the petitioner, it is open for the employer to do so, if so advised. However, on the basis of the charge framed against the petitioner, in this case, no mis-conduct has been disclosed against him. Consequently, penalty imposed on him has to go. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority which were confirmed by the appellate authority are hereby set aside. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in the service forthwith with all consequential benefits. 13. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to cost. 14. At the request of the learned Counsel for the respondent, the operation of this order is stayed for a period of six weeks. 15. Certified copy expedited. Petition succeed.