Devendra Singh v. Executive Director, Central Office RBI & ors., whereby the order of r

1. Heard Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pritish Kumar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Niteesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent herein.

2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 11.12.2024 rendered in Writ-A No. 2655 of 2024, Devendra Singh v. Executive Director, Central Office RBI & ors., whereby the order of reversion from a higher post to lower post has been set aside by the Writ Court on the ground that the charge imputed against the respondent-employee did not amount to misconduct.

3. Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Counsel, submits that once an official against whom a chargesheet was issued, has participated in the inquiry proceedings, he cannot turn around at the stage of culmination of the proceedings to say that the chargesheet issued against him was not for a misconduct, particularly when there was no challenge raised as such during the course of proceedings.

4. Peculiar are the facts before us in the present case. The respondent No. 1- delinquent employee/charged official was proceeded against in pursuance of a chargesheet dated 23.01.2023, wherein several charges in relation to the discharge of duty were levelled against him. The delinquent employee appears to have filed his reply against the chargesheet and thereafter, a detailed inquiry has followed in the light of the reply submitted by him. The inquiry officer, after concluding the inquiry, submitted inquiry-report on 3rd of May, 2023, based on which the Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice and ultimately a punishment order was passed against the sole respondent on 05.12.2023, whereby he was reverted to the next lower post, re-fixing his pay at Rs. 32070/- + ASP 610/- + SP 1450/- + GA 3207/- + SA 5259/- as per the extant rules in the scale of pay □ 17270-590(4)-19630-690(3)-21700-840(3)- 24220-1125(2)-26470-1400(4)-32070-1900(3)-37770(20 years). The respondent feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority filed an appeal as per the Service Rules before the Appellate Authority in terms of Regulation 48 of Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, alongwith an application for interim relief and the same having remained pending, gave rise to Writ-A No. 309 of 2024 before this court, wherein the following order was passed on 17.01.2024: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the R.B.I. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that against the punishment order of reversion and re-fixation of the salary, the petitioner has filed an appeal on 28.12.2023 before the respondent no. 1 along with the interim relief application but till date, no decision has been taken either on the appeal or on the interim relief application of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the counsel who generally represents the Reserve Bank of India has informed that he has no authority to receive the notice. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that a direction may be issued to the respondent no. 1 to take decision on the interim relief application and decide the appeal finally within a stipulated time frame, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 1 to take a decision on the interim relief application of the petitioner within a period of two weeks and decide the appeal within the statutory period, as prescribed under law from the date of production/receipt of certified copy of this order."

5. It appears that the appeal preferred by the respondent was coming up before the same authority, who was somehow a part and parcel of the transaction giving rise to the allegations in the chargesheet. Therefore, the delinquent employee apprehending some sense of bias, approached this court again through Writ Petition No. 995 of 2024 praying for transfer of the appeal to some other authority and simultaneously the prayer for disposal of the application for interim relief was reiterated.

6. The subsequent writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition No. 995 of 2024 filed by the respondent was ultimately dismissed as not- pressed vide order dated 07.03.2024 looking to the fact that the Appellate Authority had since decided the appeal by order dated 04.03.2023. The court granted the liberty for assailing the subsequent order in a fresh proceeding.

7. It is in pursuance to the liberty granted by this court vide order dated 07.03.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 995 of 2024 that Writ-A No. 2655 of 2024 was filed by the respondent assailing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 05.12.2024, as upheld by the Appelate Authority on 04.03.2024.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed that the Appellate Authority was the one, who somehow was the same person, who was connection with the transaction giving rise to the imputations against the respondent in terms of the chargesheet dated 23.1.2023.

9. The ground of bias was, inter alia, taken by the delinquent employee while assailing the orders in Writ-A No. 2655 of 2024. On exchange of the pleadings, the grounds taken by the delinquent employee as well as the defence set up by the appellants herein were duly appreciated by the Writ Court and ultimately the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed prescisely on the ground that the allegations levelled against the respondent-employee did not constitute a "misconduct". This observation was made by the Writ court on the premise that the attempt on the part of the delinquent employee for a written order to hand over the keys of the treasure-chest, was bona fide and in these circumstances, the allegations would not amount to a "misconduct".

10. From the material available on record, it is gathered that the delinquent employee has participated in the inquiry throughout. Whether an allegation amounts to a misconduct or not, is an issue, which requires elaborate consideration on the nature of allegation in the chargesheet, which in the present case was not questioned on such premise at the stage of initiation of disciplinary proceedings or during its pendency.

11. Be that as it may, the appeal filed by the respondent- employee in the present case, was decided by the Appellate Authority and particularly the officer, who was somehow associated with the transaction. In our considered opinion, the same officer (Appellate Authority) ought not to have decided the appeal, once the allegation of bias had come to be levelled by the delinquent employee.

12. Insofar as the quantum of punishment and the nature of allegations amounting to "misconduct" is concerned, all these aspects ought to have been dealt with in an impartial way, which does not seem to have been done in the present case. Mere decision of the appeal by an Authority, who somehow or the other was associated with the transaction would not give the satisfaction of independent justice to the delinquent employee either on the quantum of punishment or on appreciating the nature of allegations whether they amounted to "misconduct" or not.

13. The learned Writ Court has also proceeded to assume that the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee was disproportionate and simultaneously it has been inferred that the charges levelled against him did not amount to a "misconduct".

14. Though it is not necessary for us to go into these two aspects of the matter for the reason that any finding recorded by us would prejudice the decision at the level of the Appellate Authority, which in the present case was taken by the same very officer, who was associated with the allegations somehow in the normal course and the order so passed, in our humble consideration, does not stand the test of fairness. Thus, we are satisfied that the appellate order passed by the same very officer, who was associated with the allegations, has been passed in violation of the principles of Natural Justice and is liable to be set aside on the ground of bias itself as urged by the delinquent employee. The appellate order dated 04.03.2024 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority for taking a fresh decision on the appeal filed by the respondent employee, taking note of the fact informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the officer holding the post of the Appellate Authority has changed since passing of the impugned order.

15. We also take note of the fact that the respondent-employee at this stage has already superannuated and such an aspect of the matter may also be considered sympathetically while disposing of the appeal.

16. We also make it clear that all the pleas taken by the delinquent employee shall be addressed duly by the Appellate Authority while taking the decision.

17. The appeal is directed to be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of 2 months.

18. Order passed by the learned Single Judge stands modified to the aforesaid extent.

19. With the above observations/directions this Special Appeal is disposed off. ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 21.1.2025/A.Nigam (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pritish Kumar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Niteesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent herein.

2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 11.12.2024 rendered in Writ-A No. 2655 of 2024, Devendra Singh v. Executive Director, Central Office RBI & ors., whereby the order of reversion from a higher post to lower post has been set aside by the Writ Court on the ground that the charge imputed against the respondent-employee did not amount to misconduct.

3. Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Counsel, submits that once an official against whom a chargesheet was issued, has participated in the inquiry proceedings, he cannot turn around at the stage of culmination of the proceedings to say that the chargesheet issued against him was not for a misconduct, particularly when there was no challenge raised as such during the course of proceedings.

4. Peculiar are the facts before us in the present case. The respondent No. 1- delinquent employee/charged official was proceeded against in pursuance of a chargesheet dated 23.01.2023, wherein several charges in relation to the discharge of duty were levelled against him. The delinquent employee appears to have filed his reply against the chargesheet and thereafter, a detailed inquiry has followed in the light of the reply submitted by him. The inquiry officer, after concluding the inquiry, submitted inquiry-report on 3rd of May, 2023, based on which the Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice and ultimately a punishment order was passed against the sole respondent on 05.12.2023, whereby he was reverted to the next lower post, re-fixing his pay at Rs. 32070/- + ASP 610/- + SP 1450/- + GA 3207/- + SA 5259/- as per the extant rules in the scale of pay □ 17270-590(4)-19630-690(3)-21700-840(3)- 24220-1125(2)-26470-1400(4)-32070-1900(3)-37770(20 years). The respondent feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority filed an appeal as per the Service Rules before the Appellate Authority in terms of Regulation 48 of Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, alongwith an application for interim relief and the same having remained pending, gave rise to Writ-A No. 309 of 2024 before this court, wherein the following order was passed on 17.01.2024: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the R.B.I. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that against the punishment order of reversion and re-fixation of the salary, the petitioner has filed an appeal on 28.12.2023 before the respondent no. 1 along with the interim relief application but till date, no decision has been taken either on the appeal or on the interim relief application of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the counsel who generally represents the Reserve Bank of India has informed that he has no authority to receive the notice. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that a direction may be issued to the respondent no. 1 to take decision on the interim relief application and decide the appeal finally within a stipulated time frame, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 1 to take a decision on the interim relief application of the petitioner within a period of two weeks and decide the appeal within the statutory period, as prescribed under law from the date of production/receipt of certified copy of this order."

5. It appears that the appeal preferred by the respondent was coming up before the same authority, who was somehow a part and parcel of the transaction giving rise to the allegations in the chargesheet. Therefore, the delinquent employee apprehending some sense of bias, approached this court again through Writ Petition No. 995 of 2024 praying for transfer of the appeal to some other authority and simultaneously the prayer for disposal of the application for interim relief was reiterated.

6. The subsequent writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition No. 995 of 2024 filed by the respondent was ultimately dismissed as not- pressed vide order dated 07.03.2024 looking to the fact that the Appellate Authority had since decided the appeal by order dated 04.03.2023. The court granted the liberty for assailing the subsequent order in a fresh proceeding.

7. It is in pursuance to the liberty granted by this court vide order dated 07.03.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 995 of 2024 that Writ-A No. 2655 of 2024 was filed by the respondent assailing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 05.12.2024, as upheld by the Appelate Authority on 04.03.2024.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed that the Appellate Authority was the one, who somehow was the same person, who was connection with the transaction giving rise to the imputations against the respondent in terms of the chargesheet dated 23.1.2023.

9. The ground of bias was, inter alia, taken by the delinquent employee while assailing the orders in Writ-A No. 2655 of 2024. On exchange of the pleadings, the grounds taken by the delinquent employee as well as the defence set up by the appellants herein were duly appreciated by the Writ Court and ultimately the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed prescisely on the ground that the allegations levelled against the respondent-employee did not constitute a "misconduct". This observation was made by the Writ court on the premise that the attempt on the part of the delinquent employee for a written order to hand over the keys of the treasure-chest, was bona fide and in these circumstances, the allegations would not amount to a "misconduct".

10. From the material available on record, it is gathered that the delinquent employee has participated in the inquiry throughout. Whether an allegation amounts to a misconduct or not, is an issue, which requires elaborate consideration on the nature of allegation in the chargesheet, which in the present case was not questioned on such premise at the stage of initiation of disciplinary proceedings or during its pendency.

11. Be that as it may, the appeal filed by the respondent- employee in the present case, was decided by the Appellate Authority and particularly the officer, who was somehow associated with the transaction. In our considered opinion, the same officer (Appellate Authority) ought not to have decided the appeal, once the allegation of bias had come to be levelled by the delinquent employee.

12. Insofar as the quantum of punishment and the nature of allegations amounting to "misconduct" is concerned, all these aspects ought to have been dealt with in an impartial way, which does not seem to have been done in the present case. Mere decision of the appeal by an Authority, who somehow or the other was associated with the transaction would not give the satisfaction of independent justice to the delinquent employee either on the quantum of punishment or on appreciating the nature of allegations whether they amounted to "misconduct" or not.

13. The learned Writ Court has also proceeded to assume that the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee was disproportionate and simultaneously it has been inferred that the charges levelled against him did not amount to a "misconduct".

14. Though it is not necessary for us to go into these two aspects of the matter for the reason that any finding recorded by us would prejudice the decision at the level of the Appellate Authority, which in the present case was taken by the same very officer, who was associated with the allegations somehow in the normal course and the order so passed, in our humble consideration, does not stand the test of fairness. Thus, we are satisfied that the appellate order passed by the same very officer, who was associated with the allegations, has been passed in violation of the principles of Natural Justice and is liable to be set aside on the ground of bias itself as urged by the delinquent employee. The appellate order dated 04.03.2024 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority for taking a fresh decision on the appeal filed by the respondent employee, taking note of the fact informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the officer holding the post of the Appellate Authority has changed since passing of the impugned order.

15. We also take note of the fact that the respondent-employee at this stage has already superannuated and such an aspect of the matter may also be considered sympathetically while disposing of the appeal.

16. We also make it clear that all the pleas taken by the delinquent employee shall be addressed duly by the Appellate Authority while taking the decision.

17. The appeal is directed to be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of 2 months.

18. Order passed by the learned Single Judge stands modified to the aforesaid extent.

19. With the above observations/directions this Special Appeal is disposed off. ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 21.1.2025/A.Nigam (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)