Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 354 (RAJ)

B. B. Agrawal v. Reserve Bank of India

2020-02-10

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, SANGEET LODHA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This intra court appeal is directed against judgment dated 17.7.17 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant assailing the legality of the order dated 5.6.03 issued by the Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India ('RBI'), compulsorily retiring him from service, has been dismissed. 2. The facts relevant are that the appellant joined the service of RBI on 27.7.72 on being appointed on the post of Clerk/Coin Note Examiner Gr.11. The appellant was promoted on the post of Coin Note Examiner Gr.1 w.e.f. 15.9.76 and thereafter, on the post of Assistant Treasurer w.e.f. 15.10.84. The appellant was compulsorily retired from service in terms of Regulation 26(2) of Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 (for short 'the Regulations, 1948') vide order dated 5.6.03 issued by the Assistant General Manager, RBI. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed that the writ petition assailing the legality of order dated 5.6.03, has been filed by the appellant after a lapse of 6 years. Regarding acquittal of the appellant relating to the case of disproportionate assets, learned Single Judge found that the appellant has been acquitted in the said case, giving benefit of doubt and it was not honourable acquittal. The Court found that there exists an adverse remark in the service record of the appellant regarding doubtful integrity and thus, the order passed retiring him compulsorily does not warrant interference by this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterating the contention raised before the learned Single Judge submitted that ACR of the appellant of last 15 years does not reflect any negativity and thus, without consideration of overall record of the appellant, the order impugned passed by the competent authority is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that the case against the appellant by CBI was registered in the year 1996 and in the said case, he has been acquitted of the charge by CBI Court vide order dated 15.3.17. Regarding the delay in filing the writ petition, learned counsel submitted that the requisite information was furnished to the appellant under the Right to Information Act, belatedly and therefore, the appellant could not challenge the order impugned immediately. 6. Regarding the delay in filing the writ petition, learned counsel submitted that the requisite information was furnished to the appellant under the Right to Information Act, belatedly and therefore, the appellant could not challenge the order impugned immediately. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in the matter of compulsorily retirement of an employee for efficiency of the service or in the public interest, the entire service record is looked into and thus, in the instant case, where there is an adverse remark in the service record of the appellant regarding doubtful integrity and he was admittedly found indulged in criminal cases including in respect of the charges of disproportionate assets, the order impugned passed by the competent authority invoking the power under Regulation 26(2) of the Regulations, 1948, cannot be faulted with. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. Indisputably, the appellant has been compulsorily retired from service invoking the third proviso read with fourth proviso to Regulation 26(1) of the Regulations, 1948. Regulation 26 of the Regulations, 1948, may be beneficially quoted: "26(1) An employee shall retire at 60 years of age but no extension shall be given to any employee beyond 60 years of age; Provided that an employee who attains the age of superannuation on any day other the first during a calendar month, shall retire on the last day of that month; Provided further that in the case of an employee in Class IV who has reached the age of 55 years the Bank may, in its discretion, retire him/her after giving two months' notice in writing if in the opinion of the Competent Authority his/her efficiency is found to have been impaired; Provided further that the Bank may, in its discretion, retire in public interest an employee, other than an employee in Class IV, at any time after completion of 50 years of age; Provided further in the case of an employee in Class III and Class I, who has attained the age of 55 years, his/her continuance in service upto the age of 60 years shall be subject to his/her being found suitable to be retained in service. 26(2) The power conferred by the provisions to sub regulation (1) shall be exercised by the Governor, with the prior approval of the Central Board in the case of officers and by the Regional Director of Chief General Manager or General Manager, as the case may be, subject to such general or special instructions as may be issued by the Governor, in the case of other employees." Apparently, the object of compulsory retirement in terms of the said Regulation is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain efficiency of service. It is well settled that while invoking the power of compulsory retirement in public interest on the completion of requisite number of service or attaining the age specified needs to be exercised by the employer after examination of service record of an employee in its entirety. The order of compulsory retirement passed by the competent authority on the ground of public interest does not entail any penal consequences inasmuch as it does not deprive an employee any of his earned benefits and therefore, such order passed on the subjective satisfaction by the employer cannot be interfered with by the Court. The Court while exercising the power of judicial review in the matter of compulsory retirement cannot sit in judgment over the same as appellate authority. Reliance in this regard may be placed on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Murti Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr : (2020) 1 SCC 801 . 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, taking into consideration the entire service record of the appellant including the factum of his involvement in the criminal cases and the adverse entry regarding doubtful integrity, the order passed by the respondent employer retiring him in public interest, cannot be faulted with. 10. As a matter of fact, the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the order of compulsorily retirement after availing the benefits flowing therefrom, filed after a lapse of 6 years, without there being any plausible explanation there for, was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 12. No case for interference by us in intra court appeal jurisdiction is made out. 13. The special appeal is therefore, dismissed. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 12. No case for interference by us in intra court appeal jurisdiction is made out. 13. The special appeal is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.