Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 383 (KAR)

NAGARAJ M. v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

2002-06-17

N.K.JAIN, S.B.MAJAGE

body2002
( 1 ) THESE writ appeals are filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated December 15, 2000 passed in w. P. No. 556/ 1994 connected with W. P. No. 3495/1994. ( 2 ) SINCE the facts in both the appeals are common and identical, as agreed, they are heard together. ( 3 ) IT is not necessary to narrate the entire facts. The necessary and relevant facts are: appellant Mr. Nagaraj in Writ Appeal No. 646/2001 joined the services of Reserve Bank of India, on July 1, 1963 as a Clerk Grade II and was promoted as Staff Officer in Grade 'a' in the year 1975. He was confirmed on October 1, 1978 and continued to work in the said post, till he was kept under suspension by the 2nd respondent by his order dated July 4, 1979, in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. The appellant-Ramachandra Saale in W. A no. 687/2001, during the relevant point of time was working in the respondent-Bank as Staff officer Grade 'a'. He was also kept under suspension by the Manager of the respondent-Bank by order dated September 24, 1983. ( 4 ) THE appellants-petitioners were served with the charge memo dated April 1, 1985 containing charges of misconduct as Staff officers in verification Section and also as representatives of the Currency Officer at the incinerator of the office during the period 1977 to 1979. It was also specified in the charge memo that the appellants-petitioners had acted in a negligent and inefficient manner and thereby caused loss to the Bank to the tune of rs. 2,20,000/ -. The appellants-petitioners by their replies dated April 23, 1985 and April 8, 1985 respectively denied the allegations made against them. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered, appointed one V. V. Nayak, (3rd respondent in w. A. No. 646/2001) as enquiry officer along with Mohd. Shafi Ahmed as the Presenting officer. After receipt of the findings of the enquiry officer in his report dated October 17, 1988 and the records of the proceedings and after considering the evidence, the Disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that charges levelled against the appellants-petitioners were established and proved. As such it issued show cause notice along with its finding and the enquiry report on December 26, 1990. As such it issued show cause notice along with its finding and the enquiry report on December 26, 1990. Considering their replies dated February 1, 1991 and February 7, 1991, the authority not being satisfied with the explanations, imposed punishment of dismissal from service in terms of Clause (e) of sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 47 of the reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 vide order dated January 7, 1993. Against that order, the appellants-petitioners appealed to the appellate Authority as provided under regulations 48 and 49 of the Regulations, 1948. The Appellate Authority by its order dated november 9, 1993 rejected the appeals. Being aggrieved, the appellants-petitioners filed w. P. No. 556/1994 and W. P. No. 3495/1994. The learned single Judge after considering the counter and the case law on the point, rejected all the contentions of the appellants- petitioners and dismissed the writ petitions by an elaborate order dated December 15, 2000. Hence, these writ appeals. ( 5 ) THE contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners are: (a) The charge memo issued is vague and ambiguous without sufficient details of negligence; (b) Copy of statement of imputation was not furnished to the appellants-petitioners; (c) As the copy of the statement of K. M. Mathew was not supplied during the enquiry proceedings, they were not in a position to cross-examine the bank's witnesses, and therefore, the proceedings are vitiated; (d) the learned single Judge erred in rejecting all the contentions, and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, Sri Kasturi, learned senior counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the charges are not vague as they clearly mention regarding negligence. It is stated that the appellants during the period 1977-79 did not supervise but acted negligently, on account of which the mazdoors, instead of removing non-issuable and defaced notes of Rs. 100. 00 denomination for destruction, substituted the same for packets of good currency notes meant for re-issuance. Thereby the appellants have acted detrimental to the interest of the Bank and caused pecuniary loss to the tune of rs. 2,20,000/-to the Bank. 100. 00 denomination for destruction, substituted the same for packets of good currency notes meant for re-issuance. Thereby the appellants have acted detrimental to the interest of the Bank and caused pecuniary loss to the tune of rs. 2,20,000/-to the Bank. It is stated that after giving notice to everybody, K. M. Mathew was called, but the appellants- petitioners failed to cross-examine even though on earlier occasion, the case was adjourned, The learned counsel further submits that the said witness has only narrated the incident that such thing has happened during that period, and so question of prejudice does not arise and therefore the learned single Judge was right in not interfering with the orders of the respective authorities. It is also stated that as a matter of fact, they did not say anything that the copy has not been furnished to them nor any grievance was made that no copy was furnished to them at any point of time or even when the 2nd show cause notice was issued. The argument is nothing but an after thought. Therefore on this ground the appellants cannot make a new case and the order of the learned single Judge needs no interference. ( 7 ) NO doubt, one cannot be punished without giving opportunity. So also the Enquiry officer cannot make use of a document or, material without supplying a copy of the same. It is also settled that this Court, not being a court of appeal, cannot re-appreciate the evidence unless there is violation of any procedural rule or the order is mala fide, however each case depends upon the facts of its own. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the argument that the charge is vague, the facts of the case reveal that the charge pertains to negligence committed during 1977-79. The appellants were admittedly working in the respondent-Bank during that period. Nothing has been placed on record to show that they were not working at that point of time. Nor it has been stated specifically that it had taken place during the period when they were not in the verification section. So, when the misconduct was committed, at that time, the appellants were working as Staff Officers in the Verification section and were aware of the charge and hence the negligence part as per the charge has been proved. Therefore the argument that the charge is vague is not tenable. So, when the misconduct was committed, at that time, the appellants were working as Staff Officers in the Verification section and were aware of the charge and hence the negligence part as per the charge has been proved. Therefore the argument that the charge is vague is not tenable. The argument about calling Mathew and non-supply of copy of statement of Mathew cannot be agitated at this stage. Firstly, the appellants were fully aware and after due notice to all, Mathew was called and as the facts culled out, copy of statement of Mathew was given and time was granted for cross-examination, but the appellants have not cross-examined him at any point of time despite opportunity being given. As such it cannot be said that no opportunity was given nor any prejudice has been shown. That apart, Mathew has only placed the fact of the so called incident of the alleged period and the fact that during that period, the appellants were in charge and on account of their negligence, the notes of Rs. 100. 00 denomination meant for destruction were put to circulation causing loss to the Bank, are proved facts. Therefore the argument regarding non-supply of copy of statement and not giving opportunity is not tenable as stated. The enquiry Officer on the basis of material has come to the conclusion that the appellants-petitioners, were negligent and charge is proved. Once the charge of negligence has been proved, whereby the notes of Rs. 100. 00 denomination, instead of destruction, were put to circulation and caused loss to the Bank, the dismissal of the appellants cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved charge. So far as the argument that the learned single Judge has wrongly relied on the case of Union Bank of India v. Vishwamohan, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2311 : 1998 (4) SCC 310 : 1998-I-LLJ-1217 is concerned, it is also not helpful in the facts of the given case. The learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that there is any procedural error in holding the enquiry and any perversity in the finding of the impugned orders passed by authorities below. No other point was pressed. On consideration, we find the learned single Judge by an elaborate order has not interfered. The learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that there is any procedural error in holding the enquiry and any perversity in the finding of the impugned orders passed by authorities below. No other point was pressed. On consideration, we find the learned single Judge by an elaborate order has not interfered. In view of what we have discussed, we, find no error or illegality in the order of the learned single Judge so as to call for any interference. ( 9 ) THE writ appeals are dismissed. --- *** --- .