Patna High Court - Orders
C.Murugan vs The Reserve Bank Of India &Ors on 9 September, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4581 of 2007
==================================================
C. Murugan, son of Late (Sri) A. Chidambaram, permanent resident
of 39/2A, Naidu Street, Third Lane, Kottur, Chennai-600085, at
present residing A-20, R.B.I. Officers‟ Quarters, Lohianagar, P.S. -
Kankarbagh, Kankarbagh, in the town and district of Patna.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Reserve Bank of India, through the Principal Chief General
Manager, Department of Administration & Personnel
Management, Central Office, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400001.
2. The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, South Gandhi
Maidan Road, Patna-800001.
3. The Regional Director (Appellate Authority), Reserve Bank of
India, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal-462001.
4. The Deputy General Manager (Competent Authority), Reserve
Bank of India, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal-462001.
5. The Chief Security Officer also known as the Manager (P & S),
Reserve Bank of India, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal - 462001.
6. The Manager (Personnel), R.B.I., Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal-
462001.
.... .... Respondents
==================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Bose
Mr. Vikash Jha
Mr. Ratna Das
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amit Prakash
==================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
10. 09-09-2013By order dated 01-07-2013, on the prayer made by learned counsel for the parties, it was directed to list this case side-by-side of C.W.J.C. No. 13574 of 2007. However, since in C.W.J.C. No. 13574 of 2007 pleading was incomplete, the present writ petition was heard separately 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.4581 of 2007 (10) dt.09-09-2013 2 / 10 and being disposed of.
Heard Sri Gautam Bose, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Vikash Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents/Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "Bank").
The petitioner, while invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 24-10-2006 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby, his appeal preferred against the order of Disciplinary Authority was rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of an order dated 19-09-2005 passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Dy. General Manager/Respondent No. 4, whereby, in terms of Regulation 47(1)(b) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, „the next increment due to the petitioner in its substantive grade was directed to be delayed for a period of three years and he be not considered for promotion to any higher post till he draws his next increment‟ (Annexure '3' to the writ petition). The 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.4581 of 2007 (10) dt.09-09-2013 3 / 10 petitioner has also prayed for quashing of Annexure '2' to the writ petition, whereby, the same disciplinary authority had reduced the penalty from three years to two years. Of- course, in the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of charge-sheet, issued vide Memo dated 23-11-2004 by respondent no. 4, at the time of hearing, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the same.
At the very outset, a preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the Bank that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. It has been argued that all the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Madhya Pradesh. While the petitioner was posted at Bhopal, he was proceeded departmentally and punishment order was passed and the appellate authority, who was posted at Bhopal, passed the appellate order at Bhopal only and as such, learned counsel for the Bank submits that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
Sri Gautam Bose, learned senior counsel 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.4581 of 2007 (10) dt.09-09-2013 4 / 10 appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that order of the appellate authority dated 21-11-2006 was communicated to the petitioner, while he was posted at Patna itself and as such, Sri Bose specifies that part of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, the writ petition is maintainable before this Court. In support of this argument regarding maintainability of the writ petition before this Court, he has relied upon 2001 (4) PLJR 678 (SUSHIL KUMAR PANDEY VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS) as well as 2003 (2) PLJR 151 (RAMESHWAR PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS). It was submitted that in those cases, order of dismissal was communicated at a place within the State of Bihar and as such, the Division Bench of this Court was of the view that part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and as such, the writ petition was maintainable before this Court. He further submits that the entire fact is required to be noticed and only then, it can be 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.4581 of 2007 (10) dt.09-09-2013 5 / 10 established as to whether any cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court or not. He has specifically referred to Annexure '1‟ to the writ petition, whereby, the order of the appellate authority was communicated to the petitioner, while he was posted as Assistant Manager (Security) in the Protocol Section, Reserve Bank of India, Patna.
In view of the facts & circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the writ petition may not be rejected on the ground that writ is not maintainable in absence of any cause of action. It is evident that order of the appellate authority was communicated while the petitioner was posted in the Bank at Patna and as such, the Court is of the opinion that part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and as such, the writ petition is maintainable.
On the point of merit of the case, Sri Bose has firstly argued that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was initiated maliciously and the entire action of the Bank was mala fide and on this ground alone, order of 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.4581 of 2007 (10) dt.09-09-2013 6 / 10 the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are required to be set-aside. To corroborate the fact regarding allegation of malicious proceeding, Sri Bose has referred to Annexure '5', '6' and „6(1)‟ respectively to the writ petition and submits that since the petitioner in the capacity of Security Officer had reported against the authority concerned, including some of the security guards, the Bank maliciously initiated departmental proceeding by way of issuance of charge-sheet i.e. Annexure '4' to the writ petition. In support of his aforesaid submission, he has relied on an order of the Apex Court, reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 343 (State of Punjab Vs. V.K.Khanna & others). According to Sri Bose, it is a fit case for interference since maliciously proceeding was initiated. Sri Bose has further argued that in absence of establishment of charge no. 2, it was not appropriate for the disciplinary authority to impose penalty on the basis of charge no. 1. He further submits that the appellate authority has also not noticed the plea, which was taken by the petitioner in its appeal and rejected the appeal and as such, order of the appellate 7 Patna High Court CWJC No.4581 of 2007 (10) dt.09-09-2013 7 / 10 authority, contained in Annexure '1' to the writ petition, is also fit to be set aside.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents/Bank has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that while exercising power of judicial review, this Court is required to examine as to whether in decision taking process any illegality or irregularity was committed or not. He submits that since in the present writ petition, the petitioner has not at all raised any point to show any illegality or irregularity in decision taking process, this Court may refrain from interfering on merit of the case. He submits that charges leveled against the petitioner were serious in nature, however; keeping in view past record of the petitioner, the Bank had taken lenient view and imposed a punishment, which is not so harsh in the eye of law.
Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. It appears that the petitioner was departmentally proceeded for two charges, which are as follows:-
(i) Facilitating un-authorized entry of an outsider woman for accommodating in his residence in 8 Patna High Court CWJC No.4581 of 2007 (10) dt.09-09-2013
8 / 10 the Bank's Office Premises, illegally, posing threat to security of the Bank,
(ii) Having resorted to immoral activities with the said woman at his residence in the Bank's Office Premises thereby tarnishing the Bank's image and thereby committed gross misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 47 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 and violated the provisions of Regulation 47(1) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948.
On the aforesaid charges, the departmental proceeding was initiated. From the record, it is evident that in the departmental proceeding, full opportunity was provided to the petitioner for defending his case and the presenting officer was also appointed and thereafter, inquiry officer submitted his report. The inquiry officer was of the opinion that charge no. 1 was fully proved, but so far as charge no. 2 is concerned, he opined that it was not completely proved. On receipt of the inquiry report, second show cause notice was given to the petitioner, which was replied and finally, the disciplinary authority had imposed penalty, as indicated above. After the order of punishment, 9 Patna High Court CWJC No.4581 of 2007 (10) dt.09-09-2013 9 / 10 the petitioner preferred an appeal and finally, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected, vide Annexure '1' to the writ petition.
Since in the present writ petition, there is no allegation of illegality or irregularity committed in decision taking process, it would be difficult for this Court to interfere with the order of disciplinary authority while exercising power of judicial review. So far as allegation of mala fide is concerned, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has tried to establish on the strength of Annexure '5', '6' and '6(1)', which were issued under the signature of the petitioner, certain allegation was leveled against security guards. On perusal of Annexure '5', '6' and '6(1)', which were issued on 16-06-2003, 20-01-2004 and 08-09-2004, the Court is satisfied that some allegations were leveled against security guards, but on those grounds alone, it would be difficult to conclusively record a finding that departmental proceeding was initiated maliciously. Time without number, it has been noticed that it is very easy to allege mala fide but difficult to prove mala fide. 10 Patna High Court CWJC No.4581 of 2007 (10) dt.09-09-2013
10 / 10 Moreover, in absence of such persons, against whom allegation of mala fide has been alleged, it would not be appropriate for this Court to examine the allegation of mala fide. Moreover, only on the basis of mala fide, the order of punishment may not be interfered with. Only requirement is to see as to whether in the departmental proceeding, allegation against the concerned delinquent was proved or not. Since in the present case, so far as charge no. 1 is concerned, it was conclusively proved, there is no ground for interference with the order of disciplinary authority. So far as order of appellate authority is concerned, from perusal of the same, it is evident that the appellate authority had noticed each and every grounds, which were taken in the memo of appeal and they were dealt with in detail in the order of appeal.
I do not find any defect, either in the order of the disciplinary authority or in the order of appellate authority.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay