The main legal point established in the judgment is the adherence to the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, including the authority's disagreement with the enquiry officer's findings and the issuance of a show-cause notice.

( 1 ) AN officer of the Reserve Bank of India, aggrieved by the orders made by the Appellate authority dated April 21, 1993 in confirming the orders made by the disciplinary authority dated January 11, 1992 is before this Court in a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) FACTS in nutshell are: petitioner is an officer of the Reserve bank of India ('bank' for short ). At the relevant point of time, he was also an office- bearer of the local employees' union. Pursuant to a call given by the employees of the Reserve Bank of india, Bangalore Branch, it appears a 'dharna' was made in the Chambers of the Manager, reserve Bank of india, Bangalore on August 20, 1987. On the same day, the Personnel officer of the respondent-Bank made a report to the management with regard to the dharna' conducted by the employees of the Bank in the chambers of the Manager of the Bank. Since petitioner was one of those persons, who participated in the dharna, an order came to be made on August 20, 1987 keeping him under suspension pending a departmental enquiry. It appears, on August 21, 1987, even the manager of the Bank in whose place the dharna was conducted by the employees, also made a report to his higher officers.

( 3 ) THE disciplinary authority of the respondent-Bank issued a charge memo dated october 5, 1987, in exercise of its powers under regulation 47 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) regulations, 1948 ('regulations' for short ). In the charge memo, the disciplinary authority accused the petitioner of the following acts of misconduct said to have been committed by him on August 20, 1987. They are:" (A) Unauthorisedly entering the Manager's room on August 20 and 21, 1987 and obstructing him in the discharge of his official duties. (B) Squatting inside the Manager's room and being a party to gheraoing him, thereby preventing him from moving out of his room. (C) Indulging in hurling abuses against manager and other officers in filthy language and in acts of intimidation".

( 4 ) THE charge memo also directed the petitioner to file his reply, if any, within a particular time frame.

( 5 ) SINCE the charges alleged against the petitioner were serious, the disciplinary authority of the respondent-Bank thought it fit to appoint one Smt. Mayura padmanabhan, who was working as a Deputy legal Advisor at Bombay Branch, as an enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations contained in the charge memo. The enquiry officer had commenced the proceedings of the enquiry on March 25, 1988 and the same came to be concluded on February 1, 1989.

( 6 ) THE enquiry officer by her report dated march 30, 1989 is of the view that petitioner is guilty of the first charge and part of the second charge and not guilty of the third charge alleged in the charge memo.

( 7 ) THE enquiry officer thereafter had submitted her enquiry report and the findings thereon and the records of the proceedings to the disciplinary authority of the respondent-Bank. The disciplinary authority did not agree with one of the findings of the enquiry officer. Therefore, he tentatively came to the conclusion that petitioner is guilty of all the charges alleged in the charge memo. After coming to the said tentative conclusion, the disciplinary authority had issued a second show cause notice dated June 4, 1990 enclosing his tentative findings and also the report of the enquiry officer and further directing the petitioner to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as provided under the staff Regulations. After receipt of the second show cause, petitioner had filed his reply inter alia requesting the disciplinary authority of the respondent-Bank to drop the proceedings initiated against him.

( 8 ) THE disciplinary authority after considering the reply so filed by the petitioner and after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner, had proceeded to impose the following punishment. It is as under:"the pay of the CSO is reduced by two stages