Patna High Court
Mrs.Usha Shukla @ Usha Pandey vs The Union Of India & Ors on 24 August, 2010
Author: V. N. Sinha
Bench: V.N. Sinha
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3863 OF 1996
In the matter of an application under Article-226 of the Constitution of India
MRS.USHA SHUKLA @ USHA PANDEY, WIFE OF DAMODAR NATH SHUKLA,
RESIDENT OF MAHAVIR TOLA(GANJ) P.O. EKAWANA(TETARIA) P.S. UDWANT
NAGAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR, AT PRESENT 31 R.B.I. OFFICERS FLAT B.P.KOEIRALA
MARGE BANK ROAD PATNA-800001. -------------------(Petitioner)
Versus
1. THE UNION OF INDIA.
2. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH THE GOVERNOR RESERVE BANK
OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE BOMBAY-400023.
3. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL
OFFICE, BOMBAY-400023.
A. DR. C. RANGARAJAN GOVERNOR
B. SRI S.S. TARAPORE DEPUTY GOVERNOR.
C. SRI S.P. TALWAR DEPUTY GOVERNOR.
D. SRI R.V. GUPTA DEPUTY GOVERNOR.
4. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND
PERSONEL MANAGEMENT RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE
BOMBAY-400023.
5. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, MANAGER
SECTION PATNA-800001.
6. CAPTAIN SALIL SHUKLA, (I.C.NO.50795 C/O 56.A.P.O.) A.D.C. TO GOVERNOR,
JAMMU AND KASHMIR.
7. SAMIR SHUKLA C/O SALIL SHUKLA, A.D.C. TO GOVERNOR, JAMMU AND
KASHMIR(I.C.NO. 50795 C/O 56.A.P.O) --------------(Respondents)
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Usha Shukla @ Usha Pandey(In Person)
For the Union of India : Mr. Pancham Lal Jaiswal, advocate.
For the Respondent Bank : Mr. Chittranjan Sinha, Sr.Adv., Amit Prakash, advocate.
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA
V.N.Sinha,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and the counsel for the Reserve Bank of
India(hereinafter referred to as the RBI).
2. Petitioner having received letter dated
-2-
4.4.1995, Annexure-4 from the Chief General
Manager, RBI addressed to her husband Sri
Damodar Nath Shukla advising Sri Shukla to vacate
Flat No.31, Senior Officers' Quarter, Reserve Bank of
India, Bank Road, Patna as he stood dismissed from
service of the RBI under orders dated 8.2.1995 filed
this writ application praying inter alia to quash order
dated 8.2.1995 asserting that her husband having
qualification of M.Com.(AIIB) was initially appointed
in the RBI on temporary basis with effect from
10.2.1966 and was granted permanent status with
effect from 1.7.1968. Considering his clean record
was promoted as Officer Grade-B with effect from
1.4.1977, Officer Grade-C with effect from 1.10.1984
and finally as Officer Grade-D. While serving as
Currency Officer he suffered mental stress, sickness
and was placed under suspension under office order
No.194 dated 18.2.1988, Annexure-1. After the
husband of the petitioner was placed under
suspension a report dated 2.7.1990, Annexure-2B
was submitted by Sri K.K. Sinha, Currency Officer of
the RBI to the Officer-in-charge, Gandhi Maidan
police station, Patna asserting that he is resident of
Flat No.32, Senior Officers' Quarter, Reserve Bank of
India, Bank Road, Patna and his neighbour Sri
-3-
D.N.Shukla who resides in Flat No.31, Senior
Officers' Quarter, Reserve Bank of India, Bank Road,
Patna in front of his flat has perhaps lost his mental
balance as he has hit his son(Mr. K.K. Sinha's son)
and has also pushed him(Mr. K.K.Sinha) down the
staircase. In the evening when Sri Sinha returned
back from the RBI and tried to enter his flat he found
Sri Shukla to have bolted the door from outside and
was sitting in a threatening posture near his front
door. Sri Shukla has not been allowing Sri Sinha and
his family members to come inside Mr. Sinha's flat.
Having narrated the occurrence Sri Sinha speculated
in his report that perhaps in the present mental
condition Sri Shukla may hit others also and
requested the Officer-in-charge, Gandhi Maidan
police station to do something to restrain Sri Shukla
from harming and hurting others. In the report Sri
Sinha further informed the Officer-in-charge the
present status of Sri Shukla that Sri Shukla is
holding the post of Currency Officer(Operations) in
the RBI and is presently under suspension. Aforesaid
report of Sri Sinha was entered in the station diary of
the Gandhi Maidan police station vide Station Diary
Entry No.77 dated 2.7.1990 as is evident from photo
copy of Annexure-2B to the writ application. On the
-4-
basis of the aforesaid station diary entry husband of
the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Patna and the learned C.J.M. having
heard the APP as also having appreciated the mental
imbalance/condition of the husband of the petitioner
under orders dated 9.7.1990, Annexure-2 directed
that husband of the petitioner be taken back to the
Gandhi Maidan police station by the same escort
party, which has produced him in the court and the
Officer-in-charge, Gandhi Maidan police station
should make arrangement for his admission in the
Mental Hospital, Kanke, Ranchi under proper escort
and having secured admission in the mental hospital
furnish necessary information. Husband of the
petitioner after being treated at Mental Hospital for
about three months was released from the hospital
but his mental fitness was never restored and he
continued to suffer mental disorder i.e. paranoid,
schizophrenia and required treatment at mental
hospital. Information to the aforesaid effect was given
to the Manager, RBI by the petitioner under letter
dated 11.6.1993, Annexure-3 enclosing medical
prescription and bill showing purchase of medicine
with request to grant leave to her husband until he
recovers as also to release payment for meeting his
-5-
necessities and expenses on treatment. Prescription
attached with the letter is of Dr. B.K. Singh, Neuro
Psychiatrist dated 6.6.1993 on the basis of which
medicine was also purchased for Sri D.N.Shukla on
6.6.1993. The prescription of Dr. B.K.Singh and bill
for the medicine purchased is contained in
Annexure-3C to this application. Along with the writ
application petitioner has also enclosed certificate of
Dr. B.N. Tiwary, MD, the Medical Officer of the RBI
dated 8.1.1994, Annexure-3B certifying that Sri
Shukla is a case of psychiatric variety and not
responding to normal treatment and
recommendation was made that his case be referred
to a mental hospital or to a expert psychiatrist.
Further certificate of Dr. S.A. Hasib, Retired
Superintendent, Ranchi Mental Hospital dated
16.12.1994, Annexure- 3D is enclosed stating that
Sri Shukla is a psychiatric case and needs treatment
by some psychiatrist in a mental hospital. Further
information regarding mental status of the husband
of the petitioner as also the fact that husband of the
petitioner and the petitioner were starving on
account of non-release of fund by the RBI was given
to the Manager, RBI by the petitioner under letter
dated 10.1.1995, Annexure-3A further requesting the
-6-
RBI to compulsorily retire her husband. In
paragraph-8 of the writ application it has been
averred that as the husband of the petitioner was
mentally sick he could not respond to the allegation
set out in the charge sheet and the notices for
conducting the departmental proceeding.
3. Petitioner, however having received
letter dated 4.4.1995, Annexure-4 advising her
husband to vacate the place of their residence i.e.
Flat No.31, Senior Officers' Quarter, Reserve Bank of
India, Bank Road, Patna as Sri Shukla has been
dismissed from the service of the RBI under order
dated 8.2.1995 filed appeal on behalf of her husband
and dispatched the same to Patna and Mumbai office
of the RBI under registered cover dated 27.4.1995.
Petitioner again filed another appeal on 4.8.1995,
8.8.1995 addressed to the Governor, RBI through the
Chief General Manager, RBI by personally visiting
the Bombay office of the RBI to avoid limitation as
she was informed that earlier appeal filed on
27.4.1995 may not be entertained as the same has
not been addressed to the Governor, RBI. The two
memo of appeal is contained in Annexures-5 and
5/A to this application.
4. The RBI and its functionaries,
-7-
respondent nos.2 to 5 have filed their counter
affidavit opposing the prayer made in the writ
application asserting that Sri D.N. Shukla, Officer,
RBI was dismissed from service after holding full
fledged departmental proceeding. Before dealing with
the merits of the proceeding it has been averred in
paragraphs-4 and 5 of the counter affidavit that from
the records of the RBI it does not appear that the
writ petitioner is the wife of Sri Shukla as per the
records of the RBI Sri Shukla at the first instance
named Smt. Nibha Shukla as nominee in his
provident fund account and after her death he
named his sons, namely Salil Shukla and Sahir
Kumar Shukla as nominees. No record of the RBI
shows that Sri Shukla has ever described the
petitioner as his wife. In view of the fact that writ
petitioner is not the wife of Sri Shukla she has no
locus standi to file the instant writ application for the
reason that she has neither been appointed as legal
guardian of Sri Shukla by the court of competent
jurisdiction nor she has got any authority from Sri
Shukla to file the writ application. In this connection,
reference is also made to the provisions in the Civil
Procedure Code, which provides as to how a mentally
unsound person is to be represented in suit and with
-8-
reference to the said provision of the C.P.C. it is
submitted that in the writ application the same
provision should apply and petitioner should first
seek declaration in the competent civil court that she
is the wife of Sri Shukla and thereafter should
maintain the application and presently the writ
application be dismissed as not maintainable.
5. On merits it is submitted that Sri
Shukla was proceeded pursuant to charge sheet
dated 23.6.1993 charging Sri Shukla of having
committed breach of office discipline and gross
misconduct within the meaning of Regulations-39,
32, 37 and 47 of the Reserve Bank of India(Staff)
Regulations, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Staff
Regulation), which was not even received by Sri
Shukla in spite of repeated attempt of the Bank to
serve the same on Sri Shukla, whereafter the charge
sheet was sent to Sri Shukla by the Patna office of
the RBI under certificate of posting vide office letter
dated 30.8.1993. It is further asserted in the counter
affidavit that as the RBI had made all possible efforts
to serve the charge sheet on Sri Shukla and he
intentionally avoided to accept the communication,
the charge sheet was taken to have been served on
the chargesheeted officer. After waiting for the reply
-9-
of Sri Shukla for about six months from the date of
the last letter issued to him for service of charge
sheet i.e. 30.8.1993 oral enquiry was ordered by the
RBI into the charges levelled against Sri Shukla. The
Enquiry Officer also issued notice dated 8.3.1994
under registered post/certificate of posting fixing
31.3.1994 as the date for conducting the oral
enquiry. The registered letter dated 8.3.1994 was
received back in the Patna office of the RBI with
remark 'refused' made by the postal authorities. Sri
Shukla did not appear in the enquiry on 31.3.1994
and the enquiry was postponed to 28.7.1994 and
fresh notice dated 21.7.1994 was issued fixing
28.7.1994 the next date of enquiry and the letter was
sent to Sri Shukla through special messenger of the
RBI. Sri Shukla, however did not appear in the
enquiry proceeding on 28.7.1994 and the enquiry
was again adjourned to 17.8.1994 and notice to that
effect was given to Sri Shukla under letter dated
1.8.1994 asking him to appear on 17.8.1994, failing
which the enquiry would be conducted ex parte.
Notice dated 1.8.1994 was sent to Sri Shukla under
registered post, which was again received back by
the Patna office of the RBI with remark 'refused'. In
paragraph-8D at page 41 and 42 of the brief it has
- 10 -
been averred by the RBI that copy of letter sent to
the chargesheeted officer, Sri Shukla through a
messenger on 28.8.1994 was not accepted by him
and the same was therefore personally slipped in the
flat occupied by him, by the caretaker.
6. With reference to the averments made
above it is submitted that in spite of every possible
attempt made to serve the notice that the enquiry
shall be conducted on 17.8.1994 Sri Shukla did not
appear and ex parte enquiry was conducted against
him on 17.8.1994 in which two management
witnesses were examined who supported the charge
levelled against him.
7. The Enquiry Officer submitted report
dated 15.10.1994, which was considered by the
competent authority and the competent authority
having considered the conduct of Sri Shukla
concluded findings dated 23.11.1994 observing that
in spite of repeated notices, communications made to
Sri Shukla he had shown utter disregard and
indifference towards the enquiry, in the
circumstances, the Enquiry Officer was justified in
holding the ex parte enquiry. The competent
authority also observed that principles of natural
justice as also the related procedure was observed
- 11 -
during the enquiry. The competent authority not only
agreed with the conclusion but also with the
reasonings of the Enquiry Officer. The competent
authority further observed that the charge against
Sri Shukla of unauthorized absence, leaving office
earlier than the closing time without prior
permission, refusal to accept cases marked to him
for disposal by his superiors and insulting behaviour
towards his superior revealed his total indifference,
absolute dereliction of duties as well as
insubordination. The competent authority also
noticed the earlier charge sheet issued to Sri Shukla
alleging gross misconduct dated 7.7.1987 and
15.4.1988 as also the fact that taking a lenient view
of the matter he was imposed punishment of
reduction of pay by three stages for three years and
reduction of pay by one stage for three years
respectively vide order dated 8.6.1991 and 20.5.1993
respectively with expectation that he would improve
his conduct and attitude towards his superior. The
competent authority, however was of the opinion that
the sympathy shown to Sri Shukla earlier has been
misplaced. According to the competent authority Sri
Shukla had lost all confidence reposed in him by the
RBI and has also shown total disinclination to attend
- 12 -
office. Taking into account over all circumstances of
the case, the competent authority was of the opinion
that there is no alternative but to impose the
ultimate penalty of dismissal on Sri Shukla in terms
of Regulation-47(1)(e) of the Regulation.
8. Annexing the copy of the finding of the
competent authority dated 23.11.1994 Sri D.N.
Shukla was served with the second show cause
notice dated 8.12.1994 proposing the punishment of
dismissal under registered post/certificate of posting
which returned undelivered by the postal authorities
with remark 'refused', whereafter another copy of the
second show cause notice dated 18.12.1994 was
sent to Sri Shukla through the Security Officer in
person, which was dropped inside his flat through
the letter box opening into his flat. In spite of
granting more than adequate time to Sri Shukla to
reply to the second show cause notice Sri Shukla did
not file his reply, the competent authority whereafter
concluded that Sri Shukla had nothing to represent
against the proposed penalty of dismissal and was
dismissed under order dated 8.2.1995 after
regularizing his entire absence by granting him extra
ordinary leave without counting for increment and
pension, if opted for. In paragraph-8J of the counter
- 13 -
affidavit it has been specifically averred that it was
never brought to the notice of the RBI either by the
petitioner or by any other person on behalf of Sri
Shukla that Sri Shukla was suffering from any
mental illness. In paragraph-8K it has been averred
by the RBI that petitioner never showed any concern
for Sri Shukla when various notices regarding the
conduction of disciplinary proceeding was being sent
to Sri Shukla, which is indicative of the fact that writ
petitioner is not the wife of Sri D.N.Shukla. In
paragraph-8L it has been averred by the RBI that
petitioner had shown concern in the matter only
when the RBI served notice for eviction of Sri Shukla
from his official residence i.e. Flat No.31, Senior
Officers' Quarter, Reserve Bank of India, Bank Road,
Patna. In paragraph-8M it has been averred that Sri
Shukla was given full opportunity to defend himself
but he did not show any concern and remained
indifferent towards the conduction of the disciplinary
proceeding, the competent authority had no option
but to pass dismissal order. In paragraph-8N it has
been averred that Sri Shukla had the right to appeal
against dismissal order and he having obtained the
copy of the charge sheet and the connected papers
on 8.8.1995 so as to enable him to file appeal but till
- 14 -
the date of affirming the counter affidavit on
28.9.1996, Bank has not received any appeal from
him, as such the writ application is fit to be
dismissed.
9. Having made the aforesaid statements
as to how the disciplinary proceeding was conducted
against Sri Shukla pursuant to charge sheet dated
23.6.1993 and the dismissal order dated 8.2.1995
passed against him, the authorities of the Bank
proceeded to dispute the submission made in the
writ application that petitioner is the legally wedded
wife of Sri D.N. Shukla, Officer, RBI on the ground
that there is no material on the record of the RBI to
show that the writ petitioner is the wife of Sri
Shukla. In reply to paragraph-4 of the writ
application it was specifically stated that Sri Shukla
did not get mentally derailed on account of hard
work as alleged in the writ application. In response
to the averments made in the written report of Sri
K.K. Sinha, Currency Officer of the Bank dated
2.7.1990 asserting that he is resident of Flat No.32,
Senior Officers' Quarter, Reserve Bank of India, Bank
Road, Patna and his neighbour Sri D.N. Shukla who
resides in Flat No.31, Senior Officers' Quarter,
Reserve Bank of India, Bank Road, Patna in front of
- 15 -
his flat has perhaps lost his mental balance as he
has hit his son(Mr. K.K. Sinha) and has also pushed
him(K.K.Sinha) down the staircase. In the evening
when Sri Sinha returned back from the RBI and tried
to enter his flat he found Sri Shukla to have bolted
the door from outside and was sitting in a
threatening posture near his front door. Sri Shukla
has not been allowing Sri Sinha and his family
members to come inside Mr. Sinha's flat. Having
narrated the occurrence Sri Sinha speculated in his
report that perhaps in the present mental condition
Sri Shukla may hit others also and requested the
Officer-in-charge, Gandhi Maidan police station to do
something to restrain Sri Shukla from harming and
hurting others. In the report Sri Sinha further
informed the Officer-in-charge the present status of
Sri Shukla that he is holding the post of Currency
Officer (operations) in the RBI and is under
suspension. Aforesaid report of Sri Sinha was
entered in the station diary of the Gandhi Maidan
police station vide Station Diary Entry No.77 dated
2.7.1990 on the basis of which Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Patna passed order dated 9.7.1990,
Annexure-2 series for treatment of Sri Shukla at
mental Hospital, Kanke, Ranchi and with reference
- 16 -
to the statements made in paragraphs-5 and 6 of the
writ application, the counter affidavit in paragraph-
14(i) stated that those facts are denied for want of
knowledge as the report of Sri K.K.Sinha, Currency
Officer dated 2.7.1990 and the order of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Patna dated 9.7.1990 was not
brought to its notice either by the petitioner or by
any other person at the relevant period. It was also
averred in the said paragraph that had Sri Shukla
been declared as of unsound mind, the petitioner
could have applied to a court of competent
jurisdiction for appointment of legal guardian of Sri
Shukla so as to protect his interest in the
disciplinary proceeding conducted against him but
neither any such step was taken by the petitioner
nor was the RBI informed about the same. In
paragraph14(ii) with reference to the statement made
in paragraph-7 of the writ application and the
contents of letter of the petitioner dated 11.6.1993,
Annexure-3 it has been submitted that petitioner
pleaded monetary difficulties and requested for grant
of leave to Sri Shukla but her request was not
considered as petitioner had no locus standi to apply
for leave on behalf of Sri Shukla and for other
connected reliefs as she is not the wife of Sri Shukla
- 17 -
as per the records of the RBI. As regards letter dated
10.1.1995 it was submitted that thereunder
petitioner again requested for grant of loan for
treatment of Sri Shukla and also requested that
petitioner may be given job in the RBI or in the
alternative Sri Shukla be retired compulsorily and
consequential financial benefits be granted but such
request was also not considered as petitioner was in
no way connected with the Bank and is not the wife
of Sri Shukla as per the Bank's records nor she was
appointed as legal guardian of Sri Shukla by the
court of competent jurisdiction, as such, had no
locus standi to suggest that she is wife of Sri Shukla
and can make request on his behalf and the request
made in the two letters dated 11.6.1993 and
10.1.1995 was not acceded to. In paragraph-14(iii)
with reference to the averments made in paragraph-8
of the writ application it has been submitted that it
was never brought to the notice of the Bank either by
the petitioner or by any other person on behalf of Sri
Shukla that he was mentally sick and was not in a
position to respond to the charge sheet dated
23.6.1993 and the notices issued pursuant thereto.
As regards notice to vacate the official residence
dated 4.4.1995, Annexure-4 it has been submitted in
- 18 -
paragraph-14(iii) that the same was issued to Sri
Shukla and not to the petitioner and he was advised
to vacate the official residence of the Bank, which
was allotted to him while he was in service and he
was not entitled to continue therein after his
dismissal. In this connection, it was also submitted
that petitioner never showed any concern or interest
in the disciplinary proceeding conducted against Sri
Shukla till Sri Shukla was not dismissed by the
Bank, petitioner had no locus standi to even
question the contents of notice to vacate the official
residence as she is not the wife of Sri Shukla as per
records of the Bank and she has not been authorized
by Sri Shukla to represent him nor she has been
appointed as legal guardian of Sri Shukla by the
court of competent jurisdiction. In paragraph-14(iv)
of the counter affidavit Bank denied the assertion of
the petitioner that she came to know about the
dismissal of her husband Sri Shukla from the Bank
service from the contents of letter dated 4.4.1995,
Annexure-4 and stated that in her letter dated
4.8.1995 the petitioner requested for quashing the
dismissal order of Sri Shukla from the Bank's service
as also requested the Bank to give her job in the
Bank in place of Sri Shukla. In her letter received by
- 19 -
the Bank on 8.8.1995 petitioner demanded
pensionary benefits for Sri Shukla and also
requested that Sri Shukla may be given six months'
time to shift to another residence by which time the
house under construction would be nearing
completion. It was also averred in the said paragraph
that on 8.8.1995 Sri Shukla had come to the Patna
office of the RBI and requested for copy of the charge
sheet and other related papers so as to enable him to
file appeal, copy of letter of Sri Shukla dated
8.8.1995 has been annexed with the counter affidavit
as Annexure-G. In the same paragraph it was also
averred that no action was taken on the basis of
letter dated 8.8.1995 received by the RBI from the
petitioner as till the date of filing of the counter
affidavit no memorandum of appeal was received
from Sri Shukla. In paragraphs-15 and 16 of the
counter affidavit it has been stated that dismissal
order dated 8.2.1995 passed against Sri Shukla is
just reasonable and commensurate with the
misconduct proved against him. Sri Shukla refused
to accept the charge sheet dated 23.6.1993 and the
subsequent notices sent to him and did not avail the
opportunity granted to defend himself. Petitioner also
did not raise any objection or concern during the
- 20 -
enquiry proceeding and the writ application has been
filed only for the personal benefit of the petitioner
and the allegation that RBI humiliated and harassed
the petitioner and her husband is denied in the same
paragraph. It is averred that neither the petitioner
nor Sri Shukla ever brought to the notice of the RBI
any document regarding the mental condition of Sri
Shukla to show/prove that during the conduction of
the disciplinary proceeding against Sri Shukla he
was of unsound mind and was not able to protect his
interest. Sri Shukla having been granted ample
opportunity to improve his conduct, behaviour was
also given opportunity to defend himself. In the same
paragraph it is denied that Sri Shukla had good
service record as he was chargesheeted before in
July, 1987, April 1988 and punished after
conduction of the disciplinary proceeding taken
against him. In the same paragraph again it is
denied that Sri Shukla became mentally derailed due
to overload of work and had clean service record.
Further it is stated that it was never brought to the
notice of the RBI the mental derailment of Sri Shukla
during the conduction of enquiry against him, all the
medical facilities under the RBI Rules as claimed by
Sri Shukla from time to time was provided by the
- 21 -
RBI. Sri Shukla had mental derailment and was of
unsound mind while disciplinary proceeding was in
progress was not proved by documentary evidence
produced at the relevant period. Petitioner also did
not bring to the notice of the RBI about the mental
derailment of Sri Shukla at the time of conduction of
the disciplinary proceeding against him. The RBI has
not violated any of the fundamental rights of Sri
Shukla much less of the petitioner and in
appreciation of the fact that Sri Shukla was
dismissed from the service of the RBI after finding
him guilty of the charges levelled against him as also
considering the fact that petitioner is not the legally
wedded wife of Sri Shukla, the writ application be
dismissed on both counts.
10. Disputing the contents of the counter
affidavit petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit on
8/10.10.1996stating that the contents of the counter affidavit have been filed only to misguide the Court. In paragraph-2 of the rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that the departmental proceeding taken against an abnormal person without hearing his family members is illegal. In paragraph-7 it has been specifically stated that charge sheet and other notices meant for service on the husband of the
- 22 -
petitioner were kept beyond the reach of the petitioner and was received by the Security Gard posted on the gate of the Senior Officers Quarter, RBI, Bank Road, Patna who under instruction of respondent no.5 wrote refusal on the notice. Respondent no.5 being occupant of the same building had malafide intention to harass, disturb the petitioner so as to destroy the clean record of her husband. In the same paragraph it is stated that respondent no.5 ignored the fact of abnormality, mental derailment of the husband of the petitioner and prevented his better treatment. It is also asserted in the same paragraph that electric connection of the quarter of her husband and other facilities were seized even before his dismissal. Further it has been stated in the same paragraph that her husband was never provided any medical facility by the RBI. In paragraph-8 of the rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that petitioner informed respondent no.5 about the mental derailment of her husband and requested for compulsory retirement as per the provisions in the Staff Regulation since her husband was more than 50 years old. In paragraphs- 9 and 11 of the rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that after the death of the first wife of Sri Shukla,
- 23 -
Smt. Vibha Shukla on 17.7.1972 petitioner was married to Sri Shukla on 6.6.1973 and thereafter Sri Shukla obtained Life Insurance Policy No.30393040 on 23.2.1976 from LIC of India, Patna Brach Office No.1, in which Sri Shukla described the petitioner as his wife and nominee. In support of the contention that Smt. Vibha Shukla first wife of Sri Shukla died on 17.7.1972, whereafter petitioner was married to Sri Shukla on 6.6.1973, death certificate of Smt. Vibha Shukla, marriage invitation card of petitioner with Sri Shukla solemnized on 6.6.1973, letters exchanged for the purpose as also between the petitioner, Sri Shukla and the sons of Sri Shukla from his first wife, premium receipt dated 25.2.1980 of policy No.30393040 dated 23.2.1976 together with the certificate of the Senior Branch Manager, Patna Branch Office No.1, Life Insurance Corporation of India dated 3.8.1995 certifying that petitioner is nominee and wife of Sri Shukla in policy No.30393040 is annexed with the rejoinder affidavit. In the rejoinder affidavit petitioner further denied the averment of the RBI that mental derailment of her husband was not on account of hard work and asserted that he got mentally derailed due to hard work and sincerity towards the official duty as he
- 24 -
used to always work late in the night at his residence. He never enjoyed any festival or social ceremony or engagement with his family members. During 1975 Patna flood he was busy for the whole night to save the property of the RBI in the underground premises of the RBI. In paragraph-13 of the rejoinder affidavit it is asserted that when petitioner on the instruction of respondent no.5 proceeded to file appeal on behalf of her husband in the Bombay office of the RBI on 8.8.1995, taking advantage of her absence respondent no.5 forcibly obtained the statement and signature of her husband that he be provided with the dismissal order dated 8.2.1995 and other documents so as to enable him to file appeal.
11. Having considered the contents of the writ application, counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit dated 8/10.10.1996 this Court under orders dated 10.10.1996 admitted the writ application fixing 7.11.1996 as the date for its hearing with liberty to the parties that they may further exchange their affidavits in the meanwhile.
12. In compliance of the order dated 10.10.1996, RBI filed reply to the rejoinder affidavit on 18.11.1996. In paragraph-3 of the reply affidavit
- 25 -
it has been stated that Sri D.N.Shukla in the first instance named Smt. Vibha Shukla his wife(now deceased) as nominee in his provident fund account and after her death named his sons(born from Smt. Vibha Shukla) as nominee in the said account on the basis of application dated 20.11.1981 submitted by Sri Shukla. Aforesaid fact about nomination made by Sri Shukla in his provident fund account could not be brought on record earlier on account of inadvertence on the part of the counsel, as such, by filing rejoinder affidavit leave was sought to place on record nomination made by Sri Shukla in his provident fund account on 20.11.1981, Annexure-H series and other contemporaneous documents and with reference to the said document it is submitted in the reply affidavit that petitioner was never nominated by Sri Shukla as his wife in the provident fund account. In paragraph-6 of the reply affidavit it is submitted that there is no record available with the respondents to show that Sri Shukla is an abnormal person. In paragraph-7 of the reply affidavit it is stated that there is no record to show that petitioner is the wife of Sri Shukla nor did she cared to appear in the domestic enquiry at any stage. In paragraph-9 of the reply affidavit it has been
- 26 -
stated by the RBI that Sri Shukla has not disclosed any where in the records of the RBI that petitioner is his wife, wherefrom it is evident that Sri Shukla has nominated his two sons, namely, Salil Shukla and Sahir Kumar Shukla as nominee in the provident fund account after the death of his first wife Smt. Vibha Shukla. In paragraph-11 of the reply affidavit allegation of malafide has been denied with further statement that there is nothing on the record of the RBI to suggest that during the conduction of the proceeding Sri Shukla was suffering from mental abnormality. In paragraph-12 of the reply affidavit it has been stated that petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands as if her intentions were clean she would not have pleaded for compulsory retirement of Sri Shukla instead of dismissal. It is also averred in the same paragraph that question of hearing the petitioner during enquiry proceeding does not arise because it is the charge sheeted officer and not any one else who appears in a domestic enquiry. Further it has been averred in the same paragraph that competent authority did not consider the compulsory retirement of Sri Shukla since charge sheet was already issued and enquiry continued and the charge sheeted officer never made any
- 27 -
submission in this regard. In paragraphs-13 and 16 of the reply affidavit it has been averred that proof of marriage has no relevance as Sri Shukla has mentioned no where in the records of the RBI that petitioner is the wife of Sri Shukla, in the circumstances, she has no locus standi to file this writ application. In paragraph-17 of the reply affidavit the assertion of the petitioner that she was directed to go to Bombay office to file appeal and in her absence respondent no.5 forcibly took the signature of Sri Shukla is denied as baseless and mischievous. Further it is stated that on 8.8.1995 Sri Shukla received the copies of the final order and other papers regarding dismissal order from the office of the RBI for filing appeal but has not filed any appeal against the dismissal order. In paragraph-18 of the reply affidavit it is stated that in terms of the provisions of the Staff Regulation it is the charge sheeted employee who is called upon to appear before the Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry and not his family members or any other person and that petitioner had no authority to appear or to be consulted during the enquiry proceedings initiated against Sri Shukla. In paragraph-19 of the reply affidavit it has been stated that the complaint of Sri
- 28 -
K.K.Sinha had nothing to do with the enquiry proceeding initiated against Sri Shukla under charge sheet dated 23.6.1993.
13. Petitioner having received the copy of the reply affidavit enclosing the nomination made by Sri Shukla nominating his two sons on 20.11.1981, Annexure-H series in his provident fund account as nominee after the death of his first wife, filed further rejoinder to the said reply affidavit dated 6.12.1996 disputing the genuineness of the nomination made and submitted that if those documents were available earlier, contents thereof should have been disclosed and annexed with the counter affidavit. Failure to disclose the contents and annex the document in the counter affidavit creates genuine doubt about the nomination made on 20.11.1981, Annexure-H series. In paragraph-8 of the affidavit it is averred that respondent no.5 produced false documents relating to provident fund account of her husband as he being the neighbour of petitioner and her husband had knowledge about the second marriage and the two sons from the late first wife of Sri Shukla, so in order to create family dispute respondent no.5 produced false document showing nomination having been made in back date. In the
- 29 -
same paragraph petitioner further averred that in fact no nominee was named in the provident fund account of her husband after the death of his first wife Smt. Vibha Shukla and the column meant for the purpose remained blank, which fact she learnt from her husband who informed her soon after the marriage that no one is named nominee in the provident fund account. Petitioner specifically stated that signature of her husband over the provident fund form is doubtful. In paragraph-10 of the said affidavit it is stated that both sons of Sri D.N.Shukla, who are shown nominee in the provident fund account are employed and are not interested in the provident fund amount of their father. Further it is averred in the same paragraph that when Sri Shukla is alive his sons or wife cannot be given the provident fund amount and the same be deposited in the Bank account of Sri Shukla and pension should be paid to her. In paragraph-11 of the said affidavit it is averred that the proceeding taken against a mentally derailed person is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted in the same paragraph that petitioner had informed the authorities of the RBI about the mental derailment of her husband and demanded his compulsory retirement and option was
- 30 -
made by her for pension. In this connection, reference is made to Chapter-2 of Regulation-26(3) of the Staff Regulation, which enables the employee who has attained the age of 50 years may voluntarily retire after giving the competent authority three months notice in writing. In paragraphs-12 and 14 of the said affidavit it has been again reiterated that petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Sri Shukla as he was married to her after the death of his first wife. Further it is stated that she had spent all of her life time to look after her husband and his sons. There is hardly any dispute about her status. It is on the record of the Court that petitioner was married to her husband after the death of his first wife. There is no property in the name of the petitioner nor she is in service. Both the sons of her husband are employed in other state of the country and are busy in their life. They have hardly any interest to look after their father's business. It is also stated that when her husband is alive there is hardly any occasion for any one else to lay claim over the provident fund amount.
14. After admission of the case on 10.10.1996 and filing of the reply affidavit on 18.11.1996 and further rejoinder affidavit on 6.12.1996 Sri D.N.Shukla left for heavenly abode in
- 31 -
June 1998, whereafter the writ application was taken up for hearing on 1.7.1999 and this Court having learnt the fact that Sri Shukla left for the other world, in order to pass proper order considered it desirable to give opportunity of hearing to the two sons of Late D.N.Shukla(born from his first wife), namely, Salil Shukla and Sahir Kumar Shukla and directed the petitioner to add them as party respondents in the writ case and to take steps for service of notice on them by ordinary process as well as by registered post within three weeks from 1.7.1999. In compliance of the order dated 1.7.1999 the two sons of Sri Shukla were impleaded as respondent nos.6 and 7 in the writ case and notice was issued to them. Even after service of notice on respondent no.6 and 7 they have not chosen to appear and dispute the averments made in the writ application and the two rejoinder affidavits that petitioner is the second wife of Sri Shukla who was married to her on 6.6.1973 after the death of his first wife Smt. Vibha Shukla on 17.7.1972.
15. During the hearing of the writ application petitioner appearing in person submitted that the impugned dismissal order dated 8.2.1995 dismissing Sri Shukla has been passed by the RBI
- 32 -
ignoramus of the fact that her husband was mentally ill even before he was served with the first charge sheet. The mental illness continued all along and got aggravated with the passage of time. He had to be treated as an indoor patient at Kanke Mental Hospital, Ranchi at the instance of Sri K.K.Sinha, colleague and neighbour of her husband who having found the condition prevailing to be grave reported the matter to the Officer-in-charge, Gandhi Maidan police station under report dated 2.7.1990, which was registered as Station Diary Entry No.77 dated 2.7.1990 at Gandhi Maidan police station, in the light whereof Sri Shukla was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 9.7.1990 and the learned C.J.M. having heard the APP as also having appreciated the mental imbalance/condition of the husband of the petitioner under order dated 9.7.1990, Annexure-2 directed that husband of the petitioner be taken back to Gandhi Maidan police station by the same escort party, which has produced him in the court and the Officer-in-Charge, Gandhi Maidan police station should make arrangement for his admission in the Mental Hospital, Kanke, Ranchi under proper escort and having secured his admission in the Mental
- 33 -
Hospital, Kanke, Ranchi furnish necessary information. Even after return of her husband from Mental Hospital, Kanke, Ranchi his mental condition did not improve and information to that effect was given by the petitioner to the RBI under letter dated 11.6.1993, Annexure-3 annexing the prescription of Dr. B.K.Singh, Neuro Psychiatrist and the cash memo dated 6.6.1993 showing purchase of medicines advised by Dr. B.K.Singh for being administered to her husband with request to the RBI to render all support by granting her husband leave till the time he recovers and also to release funds from time to time for meeting the treatment expenses. The RBI, however, did not take any steps to grant leave and release funds for ensuring treatment of the husband of the petitioner or for rendering financial assistance. The situation was allowed to become worse after issue of charge sheet dated 23.6.1993. It is further submitted by the petitioner that when no response was made to the request of the petitioner contained in letter dated 11.6.1993, under letter dated 10.1.1995 petitioner again informed the RBI that for the last five years her husband has not been keeping well due to unstable mental state, about which RBI is also aware but the
- 34 -
RBI has not released any payment to him either in the form of allowance or loan and petitioner and her husband are on the verge of starvation. Further request was made in the said letter to release considerable sum of money as advance/loan for his treatment or to provide her a job so that she can arrange for the treatment of her husband or to consider the compulsory retirement of her husband with consequential benefits so as to enable her to meet the treatment expenses of her husband. With reference to letter dated 10.1.1995 it is submitted that ignoring the same as also the certificate of Medical Officer of the RBI dated 8.1.1994, Annexure- 3B and the certificate of Dr. S.A. Hasib Retired Superintendent, Ranchi Mental Hospital dated 16.12.1994, Annexure-3D that petitioner is a psychic case and is recommended for treatment by psychiatrist in a mental hospital the authorities of the RBI proceeded to pass dismissal order dated 8.2.1995 against a mentally unsound person, as such, the said order is fit to be set aside as no adverse order can be passed against a person suffering from mental imbalance requiring the assistance of a psychiatrist. As regards her status as wife of Sri Shukla petitioner submitted that Smt.
- 35 -
Vibha Shukla, the first wife of Sri Shukla left for heavenly abode on 17.7.1972, whereafter petitioner got married to Sri Shukla on 6.6.1973. Having married the petitioner Sri Shukla obtained LIC policy No.30393040 from LIC of India Patna Branch Office No.1 on 23.2.1976 in which Sri Shukla nominated the petitioner as nominee indicating her status as his wife and the Senior Branch Manager, LIC of India, Patna Branch Office No.1 has also certified under certificate dated 3.8.1995, Annexure-8A that nominee of Sri D.N.Shukla, Assistant Accounts Officer, RBI, Patna under policy No.30393040 is Smt. Usha Shukla, wife and in the light of such certificate there should not be any difficulty for either the RBI or for this Court to conclude that petitioner is the wife of Sri D.N.Shukla. Petitioner further submitted that to confirm the factum of her marriage with Sri Shukla this Court under orders dated 1.7.1999 directed that two sons of Sri Shukla born from his first wife, namely Salil Shukla and Sahir Kumar Shukla be impleaded as party respondent in the writ case and notice be issued to them. Even after service of notice on the two sons of Sri Shukla they have not chosen to oppose the assertion made in the writ application and the two rejoinder affidavits that
- 36 -
petitioner is the wife of Sri Shukla, as such, this Court as also the RBI should conclude that petitioner is the wife of Sri Shukla, notwithstanding the fact that she has not been nominated as nominee in the provident fund account of Sri Shukla maintained in the RBI.
16. Learned counsel for the RBI has opposed the prayer. He states that the writ application is not maintainable as from the records of the RBI it does not appear that petitioner is the wife of Sri D.N.Shukla who had earlier nominated his wife Smt. Vibha Shukla as nominee and after her death two sons from the first wife were nominated as nominee in the provident fund account of Sri Shukla on 20.11.1981, Annexure-H series. The writ application was filed on 29.3.1996 when Sri Shukla was alive, as such, petitioner being a stranger had no locus to file the writ application and petitioner neither being a legal guardian nor authorized by Sri Shukla to file the writ application had no locus to file the same. It is further submitted by the counsel for the RBI that question of locus of the petitioner to maintain the writ application is dependent on her declaration as wife of Sri Shukla, which can only be granted by a civil court of competent jurisdiction on
- 37 -
the basis of evidences adduced before it, hence the writ application is not maintainable under Article- 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. It is further stated that the documents brought on record by the petitioner like marriage invitation card, life insurance policy receipt, horoscope to establish the fact that she is the legally wedded wife of Sri Shukla are not unimpeachable evidences entitling the petitioner to prefer the writ application on behalf of Sri Shukla as the authorities/author of the certificates have not been cross-examined to establish the varacity of those documents. In support of the plea that the writ application is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, learned counsel for the RBI has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal & Ors. Versus The Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri & Ors., reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1419. It is also submitted that the two sons of Sri Shukla from his first wife have not joined hands with the petitioner in asking for the dues of Sri Shukla, as such, petitioner cannot be allowed payment of the amount due to Sri Shukla.
18. On merits learned counsel for the RBI submitted that the impugned dismissal order dated
- 38 -
8.2.1995 is justified, sustainable in the eye of law as the charge related to breach of office discipline and insubordination. In spite of dispatch of charge sheet, notices etc. intimating the date(s) for conduction of enquiry the enquiry report, second show cause notice Sri Shukla refused to accept and respond to the charge sheet/notice(s), findings recorded against him and as the charges stood proved beyond doubt the competent authority has rightly proceeded to dismiss Sri Shukla from the service of the RBI. On the point of misconduct learned counsel for the RBI has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Versus T.J.Paul, reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1994. On the question of quantum of punishment learned counsel for the RBI has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. Versus P.C. Kakkar, reported in (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 364, in the case of LIC of India Versus R. Dhandapani, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 613 and in the case of Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Versus Gulabhia M. Lad, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 775.
- 39 -
19. Having considered the pleadings made in the writ application, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit, reply affidavit and further affidavits as also the written argument filed on behalf of the RBI, it appears that this Court(Radha Mohan Prasad, J.) under orders dated 10.10.1996 having considered the averments made in the writ application, counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit dated 8/10.10.1996 admitted the writ petition fixing 7.11.1996 as the date for hearing of the writ case granting further liberty to the parties to exchange affidavit, whereafter the RBI filed reply affidavit dated 18/22.11.1996 and petitioner submitted its reply on 27.11/6.12.1996 and the writ application was taken up for hearing on 1.7.1999 when this Court (S.N.Jha, J.) having considered the facts of the case and in order to pass proper order thought it desirable to give opportunity of hearing to the two sons of Sri Shukla born from his first wife, namely, Salil Shukla and Sahir Kumar Shukla, directed the petitioner to add them as party respondents in the writ case and to take steps for service of notice on them with further direction that after service of notice on the two newly added respondents the case be listed for further hearing in
- 40 -
due course.
20. The writ application after admission having remained pending for hearing for about 14 years cannot be rejected directing the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy by filing civil suit seeking declaration that she is the wife of Sri Shukla. Reference in this connection be made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Purnea Zila Majdoor Union Through Its Secretary Versus The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1989 PLJR 493, paragraph-46. The questions raised in the writ case are to be decided in the light of the pleadings made by the parties in the writ application, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and further reply affidavits within the norms of judicial review as explained by Lord Denning in the following passage quoted with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust And Others Versus V.R. Rudani & Ors., reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1607 while examining the power of judicial review under Article-226 of the Constitution of India.
"At one stroke the courts could grant whatever relief was appropriate. Not only certiorari and mandamus, but also declaration and injunction. Even
- 41 -
damages. The procedure was much more simple and expeditious. Just a summons instead of a writ. No formal pleadings. The evidence was given by affidavit. As a rule no cross-examination, no discovery, and so forth. But there were important safeguards. In particular, in order to qualify, the applicant had to get the leave of a judge."
21. In the instant case, petitioner was granted leave of the judge not once but twice, when her writ application was admitted on 10.10.1996 and 1.7.1999 when two sons of Sri Shukla from his first wife were impleaded as party respondent in the writ case and notice was issued to them. In the light of the aforesaid two orders of this court dated 10.10.1996 and 1.7.1999 the submission of learned counsel for the RBI that the writ application be dismissed directing the petitioner to seek declaration in the civil court of competent jurisdiction does not appear to be well founded and is rejected. Having rejected the preliminary objection, I proceed to examine the submission raised by the counsel for the RBI that petitioner is not the wife of Sri Shukla as Sri Shukla has not indicated in the records of the RBI that petitioner is his wife and nominated his two sons as nominee in his provident fund account vide nomination dated 20.11.1981, Annexure-H series. Smt. Vibha Shukla the first wife
- 42 -
of Sri Shukla left for heavenly abode on 17.7.1972, whereafter petitioner was married to Sri Shukla on 6.6.1973, which is evident from the death certificate of Sri Vibha Shukla, marriage invitation card, letters exchanged between the petitioner, her husband Sri Shukla and Salil Shukla the son of Sri Shukla from his first wife and are contained in Annexures-6 series to the rejoinder affidavit. Sri Shukla obtained insurance policy No.30393040 from LIC of India, Patna Branch Office No.1 on 23.2.1976, in which Sri Shukla named the petitioner as his wife and nominee, which fact is evident from conjoint reading of premium receipt dated 25.2.1980 and the certificate of Senior Branch Manager, LIC of Inida, Patna Branch Office No.1 dated 3.8.1995, Annexures-8 and 8/A to the rejoinder affidavit. To confirm the factum of marriage of petitioner with Sri Shukla this Court under orders dated 1.7.1999 impleaded the two sons of Sri Shukla from his first wife, namely, Salil Shukla and Sahir Kumar Shukla as respondent nos.6 and 7 and issued notice to them. In spite of service of notice on the two sons of Sri Shukla, respondent nos.6 and 7 they have not chosen to appear and dispute the assertion of the petitioner that she is legally wedded wife of their
- 43 -
father Sri Shukla who obtained insurance policy No.30393040 from LIC of India, Patna Branch office No.1 dated 23.2.1976. During the hearing of the writ application, Manager Personnel, RBI verified the correctness of the statement made in the rejoinder affidavit and the certificate dated 3.8.1995, Annexure-8A from Senior Branch Manager, LIC of India, Patna Branch Office No.1, who confirmed the fact that petitioner has been described as wife of Sri Shukla in the records of LIC vide policy No.30393040 dated 23.2.1976. Manager, Personnel also obtained further certificate to the aforesaid effect dated 21.7.2010, which has also been taken on record. Reference in this connection be made to the orders of this Court dated 15/22.7.2010 passed in the instant case. The entries made in the records of the LIC vide Policy No.30393040 dated 23.2.1976 that petitioner is the wife of Sri Damodar Nath Shukla, Assistant Accounts Officer, RBI is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
22. In view of the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit coupled with the fact that respondent nos.6 and 7, the two sons of Sri Shukla from his first wife having chosen not to dispute the assertion of the petitioner that she is legally wedded
- 44 -
wife of Sri Shukla and the fact that Branch Manager, LIC of India, Patna Branch Office No.1 has also confirmed the fact that Sri Shukla obtained LIC policy No.30393040 on 23.2.1976 in which Sri Shukla described the petitioner as his wife and nominee, it is concluded that petitioner is the wife of Sri D.N.Shukla.
23. From the averments made in the writ application itself it appears that the husband of the petitioner after his suspension under order dated 18.2.1988, Annexure-1 became a mental case and report dated 2.7.1990 was submitted by his colleague and neighbour Sri K.K.Sinha, Currency Officer, RBI to the Officer-in-Charge, Gandhi Maidan police station asserting that he is resident of Flat No.32, Senior Officers' Quarter, Reserve Bank of India, Bank Road, Patna and his neighbour Sri D.N.Shukla who resides in Flat No.31, in front of his flat has perhaps lost his mental balance as he has hit his son(Mr. K.K. Sinha's son) and also pushed him(Mr. K.K.Sinha) down the staircase. In the evening when Sri Sinha returned back from the RBI and wanted to enter his flat found Sri Shukla to have bolted the door from outside and sitting in a threatening posture near the door. Sri Shukla has
- 45 -
not been allowing Sri Sinha and his family members to enter their flat. Having narrated the occurrence Sri Sinha speculated in his report that perhaps in the present mental condition Sri Shukla may hit others also and requested the Officer-in-charge, Gandhi Maidan police station to do something to restrain Sri Shukla from harming and hurting others. In the report Sri Sinha also informed the Officer-in-charge the present status of Sri Shukla that Sri Shukla is holding the post of Currency Officer(Operations) in the RBI and is presently under suspension. Aforesaid report of Sri Sinha was entered in the station diary of the Gandhi Maidan police station vide Station Diary Entry No.77 dated 2.7.1990 as is evident from photo copy of Annexure-2B to the writ application. On the basis of the aforesaid station diary entry husband of the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 9.7.1990. The learned C.J.M. having heard the APP as also having appreciated the mental imbalance/condition of the husband of the petitioner under orders dated 9.7.1990, Annexure-2 directed that husband of the petitioner be taken back to the Gandhi Maidan police station by the same escort party, which has produced him in the court and the Officer-in-charge, Gandhi Maidan police
- 46 -
station should make arrangement for his admission in the Mental Hospital, Kanke, Ranchi under proper escort and having secured his admission in the mental hospital furnish necessary information. Sri Shukla after being treated at mental hospital for about three months was released from the hospital but his mental fitness was never restored and his sickness continued all along, which would also appear from the order of the Executive Director dated 8.6.1991, which was passed pursuant to charge sheet dated 7.7.1987 taking into account the submissions of the husband of the petitioner contained in his letter dated 1.1.1991 requesting the authorities to consider his case sympathetically in the context of his sickness. Even after issue of order dated 8.6.1991 the mental sickness of the husband of the petitioner continued and he did not respond to the charge sheet dated 15.4.1988 as also the notices issued pursuant thereto asking him to contest the allegations made in the charge sheet but the Deputy Governor taking into account that husband of the petitioner had many more years of service remaining in the RBI under order dated 20.5.1993 gave him final chance to improve his attitude, behaviour and performance. Husband of the petitioner was mentally
- 47 -
sick when the aforesaid two punishment orders dated 8.6.1991 and 20.5.1993 was passed, as such, there was no occasion for him to improve his attitude, behaviour and performance. Petitioner being aware of the mental sickness of her husband also informed the Manager, RBI under letter dated 11.6.1993 that her husband is suffering from mental disorder i.e. paranoid, schizophrenia and required further treatment at mental hospital. Along with letter dated 11.6.1993, Annexure-3 petitioner also annexed the prescription of Dr. B.K.Singh, Neuro Psychiatrist dated 6.6.1993 and the cash memo dated 6.6.1993 showing purchase of medicines advised by Dr. B.K.Singh for being administered to her husband with request to the RBI to render support by granting her husband leave till the time he recovers and also to release funds from time to time for meeting the treatment expenses. The RBI, however, did not take any steps to grant leave and to release funds for ensuring the treatment of her husband or for rendering financial assistance and the situation was allowed to drift from bad to worse after issue of charge sheet dated 23.6.1993. As no step was taken by the RBI on the request made in letter dated 11.6.1993, petitioner under letter dated
- 48 -
10.1.1995 again informed the RBI that for the last five years her husband has not been keeping well due to unstable mental state but the RBI has not released any payment to him either in the form of allowance or loan and petitioner and her husband are on the verge of starvation. Further request was made in the said letter to release considerable sum of money as advance/loan for his treatment or to provide the petitioner a job so that she can arrange for his treatment or to consider the case of her husband for compulsory retirement with consequential benefits so as to enable her to meet the treatment expenses of her husband. In view of the contents of letter dated 10.1.1995, Annexure-3A the certificate of Medical Officer of the RBI dated 8.1.1994, Annexure-3B and the certificate of Dr. S.A. Hasib Retired Superintendent, Ranchi Mental Hospital dated 16.12.1994, Annexure-3D there is no difficulty in concluding that husband of the petitioner was a psychic case at the relevant time and was recommended for treatment by psychiatrist in a mental hospital but the authorities of the RBI proceeded to pass dismissal order dated 8.2.1995 against a mentally unsound person. In case the authorities of the RBI desired to dispute the contents
- 49 -
of letter dated 11.6.1993, prescription of Dr.B.K.Singh dated 6.6.1993, certificate of Dr. B.N.Tiwary, Medical Officer, RBI and Dr. S.A. Hasib, retired Superintendent, Ranchi Mental Hospital dated 8.1.1994 and 16.12.1994 as also the letter of the petitioner dated 10.1.1995, Annexures-3, 3C, 3B, 3D and 3A it was open to them to have constituted a Medical Board for medical examination of the husband of petitioner but without getting the husband of the petitioner medically examined by any doctor, the prescription of Dr.B.K.Singh, Neuro Psychiatrist dated 6.6.1993, findings of Dr.B.N. Tiwary, Medical Officer, RBI and Dr. S.A. Hasib, Retired Superintendent, Ranchi Mental Hospital that husband of the petitioner was a psychic case at the relevant time and required treatment by psychiatrist in a mental hospital could not have been disputed and should have been accepted by the RBI. Perusal of the dismissal order dated 8.2.1995, however, indicates that thereunder also reference has been made to the sickness of the husband of the petitioner but it is said that taking into account his sickness lenient view was earlier taken against him but he failed to improve in spite of granting him adequate opportunity to improve. He remained altogether
- 50 -
indifferent and has belied all the expectations, as such, RBI has no option but to dismiss the husband of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit and the reply to rejoinder affidavit, the RBI has justified the impugned dismissal order dated 8.2.1995 on the ground that neither the petitioner nor anybody else on behalf of her husband ever informed the RBI that husband of the petitioner was suffering from mental sickness and could not appear in the departmental proceeding to defend himself. From the counter affidavit and the reply to rejoinder affidavit itself it will appear that RBI has not disputed the receipt of letter dated 11.6.1993 and 10.1.1995, Annexure-3 and 3/A, perusal whereof indicates that petitioner had informed the Manager, RBI, Patna that her husband Sri Shukla suffered from mental sickness. In support of her assertion petitioner has relied in her letter dated 11.6.1993, Annexure-3, on the medical prescription of Dr. B.K.Singh, Neuro Psychiatrist dated 6.6.1993 and the cash memo showing purchase of medicines advised by Dr. Singh dated 6.6.1993, Annexure-3C. Under letter dated 10.1.1995, Annexure-3A also petitioner had informed the Manager, RBI, Patna that her husband requires treatment at mental hospital and as the RBI has not
- 51 -
sanctioned leave to her husband and released funds for his treatment she along with her husband is on the verge of starvation. Under letter dated 10.1.1995 petitioner had also requested the RBI to consider the case of her husband for compulsory retirement. The RBI, however, chose to ignore such request and proceeded to dismiss the mentally sick husband of the petitioner under order dated 8.2.1995, part of Annexure-D at page 110 of the brief, which is wholly illegal as mentally insane employee of the RBI cannot be proceeded departmentally and punished under the Staff Regulation. In this connection, it is interesting to note the averments made in paragraph-12 of the reply affidavit dated 18/22.11.1996, which is quoted for ready reference:-
12. That the averment made in paragraph-8 of the rejoinder is denied. This is evident from this paragraph that the petitioner has not come to the Hon'ble Court with clean hands. If her intentions were clean she would not have pleaded for compulsory retirement of Shri D.N.Shukla instead of dismissal.
The question of hearing the petitioner during enquiry proceedings does not arise because it is the charge sheeted employee and not any one else who appears in a domestic enquiry. Competent authority did not consider compulsory retirement of Shri D.N.Shukla since charge sheet was already issued and enquiry held and the
- 52 -
charge sheeted officer never made any submission in this regard.
Charge sheet was issued on 23.6.1993 ignoring the finding of the Executive Director contained in order dated 8.6.1991 that the husband of the petitioner is mentally sick and that he had not responded to the subsequent charge sheet dated 15.4.1988 as is evident from the subsequent order of the Deputy Governor dated 20.5.1993 as also the fact that petitioner herself had informed the RBI under letter dated 11.6.1993, Annexure-3 that her husband is mentally ill and required treatment in a mental hospital for which he be allowed leave and funds be released but the RBI ignored the same and proceeded to issue charge sheet which shows the indifferent attitude of the RBI authorities towards a senior officer of the RBI who had pains takingly served the RBI at the time of crisis when flood visited its Patna office and he worked for the whole night. Aforesaid statement made in paragraph-10 of the rejoinder affidavit dated 8/10.10.1996 has not been disputed in the further reply affidavit. Even after submission of the report of the Enquiry Officer petitioner informed the RBI under letter dated 10.1.1995, Annexure-3A that in view of mental
- 53 -
illness of her husband he be considered for compulsory retirement, but such request was also ignored. This also indicates the indifferent attitude of the RBI authorities towards its senior officer who served the organization well while he was mentally fit. It may also be mentioned here that husband of the petitioner left for heavenly abode in June, 1998 but prior thereto he never applied for release of the contributory provident fund amount nor the authorities of the RBI allowed him to withdraw the said amount, as such, there is no difficulty in concluding that he suffered mental illness which prevented him from securing release of his own provident fund amount.
24. In view of my discussion and observations above, I have no option but to quash the dismissal order dated 8.2.1995, part of Annexure-D, kept at page-110 of the brief and direct that petitioner be paid arrears of salary of her late husband until the date of his death or superannuation, which ever is earlier. Petitioner be also paid the other legal dues of her husband including the amount of provident fund with up to date interest but before making such payment petitioner be asked to furnish undertaking on
- 54 -
affidavit that in the event the two sons of Late D.N.Shukla from his first wife, respondent nos.6 and 7 ever ask her for their share, she shall reimburse them of their share in the amount paid to her. Aforesaid payment be released in favour of the petitioner as early as possible, in any case within two months of the petitioner furnishing undertaking on affidavit that she shall reimburse the share of respondent nos.6 and 7 in the amount paid to her as and when they request her to make such payment.
25. In the result, the writ application is allowed with cost assessed at Rs.25,000/-.
( V. N. Sinha, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 24th August, 2010 AFR/Rajesh