Back
2009 Supreme(Cal) 290
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
PRATAP KUMAR RAY, SADHAN KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
Prabhat Kumar Chakravarty - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
A.P.O. No. 173 of 2007 W.P. No. 62 of 2007
Decided on : April 06, 2009
Subir Sanyal, Sutirtha Das, Arijit Chaudhary, Alok Banerjee, A.Sarkar
A charge memo cannot be quashed on the ground that the document was subsequently supplied under the Right to Information Act, if the charge memo was framed on the basis of the fact that the petitioner had procured the document without prior permission at the material time, and that this constituted a breach of the relevant regulations.
Headnote:
PRATAP KUMAR RAY, J. - [WRIT PETITION NO.62 OF 2007] - [CHALLENGE TO CHARGE MEMO ISSUED ON GROUND OF PROCUREMENT OF DOCUMENT WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION] - [WHETHER CHARGE MEMO CAN BE QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SUPPLIED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT] - [HELD, NO] - [APPEAL DISMISSED]
Fact of the Case:
Appellant challenged the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2007 passed by the Learned Trial Judge in writ petition No.62 of 2007 along with other two applications G. A. No.602 of 2007 and G. A. No.674 of 2007. Writ application stood dismissed by a reasoned decision on considering the limitation to exercise the power of judicial review by the writ Court with reference to challenge of a charge- sheet to set it aside at the initial stage as issued by initiating a departmental proceeding by the Competent Authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the charge memo could not be quashed on the ground that the document was subsequently supplied under the Right to Information Act. The court reasoned that the charge memo was framed on the basis of the fact that the petitioner had procured the document without prior permission at the material time, and that this constituted a breach of Regulation 33 and 47(1) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. The court further held that it was not appropriate to prejudge the issue before the final decision by the disciplinary authority.
Issues: Whether the charge memo could be quashed on the ground that the document was subsequently supplied under the Right to Information Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a charge memo could not be quashed on the ground that the document was subsequently supplied under the Right to Information Act. The court reasoned that the charge memo was framed on the basis of the fact that the petitioner had procured the document without prior permission at the material time, and that this constituted a breach of Regulation 33 and 47(1) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. The court further held that it was not appropriate to prejudge the issue before the final decision by the disciplinary authority.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed with the cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the respondent Reserve Bank of India and all interim orders earlier passed stand vacated.
PRATAP KUMAR RAY, J.
1. CHALLENGING the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2007 passed by the Learned Trial Judge in writ petition No.62 of 2007 along with other two applications G. A. No.602 of 2007 and G. A. No.674 of 2007, this appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner as appellant. Writ application stood dismissed by a reasoned decision on considering the limitation to exercise the power of judicial review by the writ Court with reference to challenge of a charge- sheet to set it aside at the initial stage as issued by initiating a departmental proceeding by the Competent Authority.
2. THE challenge in the writ application is the charge memo in a departmental proceeding issued on 15th December, 2006 which read such: RESERVE BANK OF INDIA www.rbi.org.in DAPM(Kol) Disc. 9134/03.50.01/2006-07 December 15, 2006 CONFIDENTIAL Shri Prabhat Kumar Chakravarty Assistant Manager, (Emp.No.0144, P.F. Index No.CC-0227) Department of Statistical Analysis And Computer Services, Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata (Through THE Director, DESACS, RBI, Kolkata) Dear Sir, Staff- Class-I-Discipline-Show Cause Please refer to your reply dated November 16, 2006 to the show cause notice issued to you vide DAPM(Kol) Disc. 7190/03.50.01/2006-07 dated November 9, 2006. THE undersigned has gone through the contentions advanced by you in your above letter and found that your reply to the show cause is not tenable and acceptable to the bank. You are, therefore, advised that the charge as set out in paragraph 3 below has been framed against you in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 2 hereunder. 2. It has been noticed that along with your representation dated 9 August, 2006 (but signed on August 14, 2006) to the Appellate authority, the Regional Director, Kolkata, in connection with the Charge sheet vide DAPM(Kol) Disc. 14256/03.50.01/2004-05 dated May 05, 2005, you enclosed a copy of one sensitive and secret document containing the signatures of the officers of the PAD, RBI, Kolkata, which you procured without having prior permission of the Bank while discharging your duties as Assistant Manager, General Section of PAD, RBI, Kolkata. You were not entitled to acquire/possess the same for your personal use without permission of the Bank. Further, your acquisition of the document from the department has also been admitted by you in your aforesaid representation dated August 09, 2006. Your reply is not, therefore, convincing and tenable, rater misleading. Your above act amounts to pilferage of official documents. 3. You are, therefore, charged with having committed acts of gross misconduct and indiscipline and thereby acting in a manner detrimental to the interests of the Bank by contravening Regulation 33 of the Reserve Ban of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. 4. Your said act amounts to misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 47(1) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations 1948.You have thus rendered yourself liable for disciplinary action and this charge-sheet is accordingly issued to you under Regulation 47 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations 1948. 5. You are hereby called upon to answer the above charge in writing or in person within 10 days from the date of receipt of this charge-sheet. In the latter case, your defence will be taken down in writing and read out to you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Illegible (Lily Vadera) Deputy Manager (Banking)" The said charge memo has been challenged on the ground that the relevant document containing signatures of officers of Public Accounts Department, Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata which admittedly was procured without prior permission of the Competent Authority and submitted before a superior authority namely the Appellate Authority, the Regional Director, Kolkata with reference to grievance against another charge-sheet dated 5th May, 2005, practically was not a sensitive and secret document since the said document which was submitted on 9th August, 2006 to the appellate author
