Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The copy of signature sheet of all officers of PAD for relevant quarter is enclosed.

If you desire to prefer an appeal against this reply, the same may be preferred within 30 days of receipt of this letter to Dr. Rakesh Mohan, Deputy governor, Reserve Bank of India, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001.

Yours faithfully, Sd/- H. N. Prasad H. N. Prasad Chief Public Information Officer Enclo: As above."

It is the submission of the appellant before us that there was no element of misconduct for initiation of a departmental proceeding on the alleged ground of procurement of a document without prior permission of the appropriate authority, containing the specimen signatures of superior officers of Public Accounts Department and submission of the same on 9th August, 2006 to the Appellate Authority, the Regional Director, Kolkata in connection with another departmental proceeding. From the charge sheet under challenge it appears that it has been levelled for breach of regulation 47 (1) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulation, 1948 read with Regulation 33 thereof, hereinafter referred to as Regulation for brevity. The Regulation 33 and 47(1) aforesaid read such:

(a) reprimand;

(b) delay or stoppage of increment or promotion;

(c) degradation to a lower post or grade or to a lower stage in his incremental scale;

(d) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by the employee;

(e) dismissal."

The Regulation 33 is under chapter IV with heading "Conduct, Discipline and Appeals" and more precisely under Section 1 thereof with the heading "conduct and discipline". The Regulation 33 mandates the employee concerned to maintain strict secrecy about the Bank's affair with a debarring clause not to disclose any document directly and indirectly to anybody and even to the Bank Staff, unless appropriate permission is accorded by the superior officer. The charge has been framed accordingly that on 9th August, 2006 when the document was procured without permission of the Competent Authority, it caused a breach of Regulation 33 to attract the misconduct defined thereto for appropriate departmental proceeding. The subsequent delivery/supply of the said document under Right to Information Act which has been taken as a stand to counter the charge sheet issued on the ground that there was no element of misconduct and/or no foundation thereof, was a document issued with proper permission of the Competent Authority satisfying the Regulation 33 and Right to Information Act. It appears from the record that when the document was procured on 9th August, 2006 the petitioner got no permission to procure it and to submit it to the superior officer, the appellate authority who is also the staff in terms of Regulation 33.

That became the cause of action of initiation of the departmental proceeding on the charges levelled against the delinquent writ petitioner. The charge sheet contains following material facts : -

i) Procurement of a document without prior permission of the Bank authority while the writ petitioner was discharging the duty as Assistant Manager, General Section of Public Accounts Department, Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata.

To identify the issue we have to consider the implication of Rule 33 of the Staff Regulation wherein it is provided that without permission of the Competent Authority or superior officer no employee would be entitled to procure a document and divulge it directly or indirectly not only to the public but also to the Bank's staff. The charge memo is with structural foundation of a breach namely the obligation to maintain secrecy under Regulation 33. As already observed that when a document produced, at the material time, writ petitioner was not legally authorised to procure it but after issuance of the show cause notice, the petitioner got that document officially under the said Right to Information Act. The charge memo has been framed on considering the cause of action arose on the material time when the document was procured by the delinquent writ petitioner and submitted before the Appellate Authority being a document containing signatures of the Bank officers and admittedly without permission which has been practically accepted in the reply. Hence the heart and soul of the allegation of charge sheet on the point whether delinquent writ petitioner got prior permission to procure the document or not and thereby whether there is a breach of Regulation 33 and 47(1) as discussed earlier at the material time when delinquent submitted it.