Back
Upholds of RBI Employee Over Personal Dispute
The , in a significant ruling, dismissed an appeal filed by the challenging a single-judge order that reinstated an employee dismissed for allegedly slapping a woman who visited him at work. The division bench, comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, affirmed that acts stemming from a purely personal dispute, without any direct connection to employment, cannot be construed as under the .
The Incident and Departmental Proceedings
Vijayanand Rai, a Class-III employee working as an Assistant Word Processor at the RBI's Kanpur office, was accused of slapping a woman, Ms. Munni Rai alias Meenu, inside the Rajbhasha room on . She had entered the premises using a visitor's pass, claiming to be his wife. After the alleged altercation, Rai left the office without permission. Subsequently, Ms. Munni Rai filed a complaint alleging a separate assault on , which led to a . Rai responded with a notarised affidavit purportedly from Ms. Munni Rai, stating the complaints were false and the disputes settled. She later denied executing the affidavit, prompting a second alleging forgery.
A common departmental enquiry was conducted against both chargesheets. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved, leading to Rai's under . His statutory appeal was rejected. Aggrieved, he filed a before the , which was allowed by a single judge on , setting aside the and directing with consequential benefits. The RBI appealed this decision in the present .
Arguments from Both Sides
The RBI, represented by , contended that the single judge erred in interfering with the disciplinary proceedings. It was argued that the incident occurred during office hours within RBI premises, directly affecting the institution's discipline and dignity. The RBI further asserted that the respondent had ample opportunity to cross-examine witnesses but chose not to, and that the charge of submitting a forged affidavit was proved by Ms. Munni Rai's categorical denial. The appellant also maintained that the enquiry report was detailed and reasoned.
On the other hand, , appearing for the respondent, argued that the allegations arose from a personal dispute unrelated to his official duties. He pointed out that neither the Notary nor a handwriting expert was examined to establish forgery, and the enquiry was procedurally flawed, including the rejection of his request to be represented by a legal practitioner. He also emphasised that the punishment of was disproportionate and that he had already reached superannuation.
Court's Analysis: Between Conduct and Employment
The High Court examined whether the alleged conduct constituted under . The court observed that while discipline in the workplace is vital, not every personal act of an employee can be treated as . It relied on the 's decision in , which emphasised that there must be a real, substantial, immediate and proximate causal connection between the and the employment. The court held:
"Every alleged personal act of an employee cannot be treated as unless it has a with the employment or affects the discipline, functioning or reputation of the employer."
Since the visitor was not a bank customer or official and had come for a personal visit, the incident was deemed a private matter. The court noted that even if the act of leaving without permission could be a under the Regulations, a solitary occurrence following a brawl with a personal visitor could not justify the harshest penalty of .
The Forgery Charge: Failure of Proof
On the second charge of submitting a forged affidavit, the court held that the lay with the employer. The RBI relied solely on Ms. Munni Rai's denial without obtaining a handwriting expert's opinion or summoning the Notary to verify the signature. The court cited and to underscore that the employer must establish the charge on reliable material. It concluded:
"The Enquiry Officer ought to have first either call the Notary as witness or should have taken steps to verify the signature of Ms. Munni Rai, to satisfy itself that the material available on record was sufficient to establish the allegation levelled against the respondent."
Procedural Irregularities and
The High Court also found that the enquiry was conducted in violation of . The single judge had noted that the Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of a bank officer on a date without informing the respondent, denying him the opportunity to cross-examine. The appellate authority had mechanically affirmed the disciplinary order without independent reasoning. Citing , the court agreed that such infirmities warranted judicial interference.
Further, relying on , the court emphasised that is the most severe penalty and must be reserved for the gravest . The court observed that the allegations, even if proved, did not involve corruption, moral turpitude, or loss to the bank, making the punishment disproportionate.
Decision and Directions
The division bench dismissed the , affirming the judgment of the single judge. It directed the competent authority to determine the respondent's claim for arrears of salary from the date of until superannuation within three months, and to consider consequential retiral benefits. The court declined to remand the matter, noting that the respondent had already retired and that further proceedings would reopen old wounds.
This ruling reinforces the principle that an employee's private conduct, unless directly impacting the employer's interests, cannot be arbitrarily classified as service . It also underscores the importance of a fair enquiry and proportionate punishment in disciplinary proceedings.
