Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Cal) 802

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.
Debasis Chatterjee – Petitioner
Versus
The Reserve Bank of India and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 12052 (W) of 2013
Decided On : 19-11-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Surajit Samanta, Anindita Ray.
For the Respondents: Arijit Choudhuri, A.K. Banerjee, A. Sarkar.

The judgment establishes the importance of procedural fairness, transparency, and the need for reasoned decisions in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and fair treatment of the accused.

Headnote:
Whistleblower - Disciplinary Proceedings - RBI (Staff) Regulations, 1948 - Regulation 34, Regulation 32, Regulation 47 - The judgment discusses the attempted unauthorized redemption of Savings Bond, misuse of user ID and password, and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The court analyzed the procedural impropriety in the conduct of the proceedings, the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and the penalty imposed by the Competent Authority. The judgment highlights the principles of natural justice, procedural fairness, and the arbitrary nature of the decision-making process.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Assistant Manager at RBI, was accused of unauthorized redemption of Savings Bond using his user ID and password. Despite being exonerated in the first enquiry, the proceedings were reopened, and the petitioner was ultimately penalized.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the decision to reopen the proceedings was unwarranted and unfair, and the subsequent penalty imposed on the petitioner was arbitrary and not supported by evidence.
Issues: Procedural impropriety, violation of natural justice, arbitrary decision-making, and unfair treatment of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision to reopen the proceedings was unjust and the penalty imposed was not based on any established charge against the petitioner. The court also emphasized the importance of reasons for any decision with adverse consequences and the need for fair and transparent decision-making processes.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order directing the reopening of the enquiry proceeding and all subsequent orders, ruling in favor of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.

1. The main prayer in this writ petition is as follows:-

“(a) Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of Mandamus to issue setting aside and quashing the impugned departmental proceeding initiated under the charge sheet dated 16.05.2011, being Annexure 'P/5' hereto, the order of reopening of the disciplinary proceedings, the Enquiry Report dated 07.08.2012, being Annexure 'P/33' hereto, the findings dated 26.09.2012 of the Disciplinary Authority, being Annexure 'P/36' hereto, the tentative order dated 26.09.2012 of the Disciplinary Authority proposing punishment, being Annexure 'P/35' hereto, and the final order dated 14.02.2013, being Annexure 'P/41' hereto, and thereupon to allow the petitioner all consequential service benefits as if there had been no such departmental proceeding along with interest @ 18% per annum on all arrears and further commanding them to act and proceed strictly in accordance with law.”

Case of the petitioner:

2. The petitioner was working as Assistant Manager at the Reserve Bank of India (in short ‘RBI’) Calcutta.

The petitioner received a letter dated 22 December, 2010 from the RBI alleging attempted unauthorized redemption of 6.5 per cent Savings Bond, 2003 for an amount of Rs. 35 lakhs by using User ID and password of the petitioner and asking for an explanation in that regard. The petitioner responded by his letter dated 12 January, 2011. In his reply, the petitioner, inter-alia, stated that on or about 6 December, 2010 the instrument in question was placed before him for obtaining his signature from where for the first time he came to know about the incident.

He searched for the relevant case papers but the same were found to be missing. Considering the serious nature and/or grave urgency of the matter he straight away brought the incident to the notice of AGM/HOD. In the said reply, the petitioner further stated as follows:-

“11. During my time in PDO a serious aspect cropped up after obtaining the audit trial was that even in my sanctioned leave period the user id DCH was used on 22.11.2010 regarding which I would have been remained still in dark had the incident did not come into light. This clearly indicates although the said user id "DCH" was used presumably only by me, the same has to be very much generic in nature.

However, after detection of this I myself made the said user id "DCH" suspended by unsuccessfully attempting to log on by using wrong passwords.

12. It is pertinent to mention here that I was no way connected to the inward, updation, authorisation, etc. of the RBICABLO44747 as mentioned in the letter under reply. It is also pertinent to consider that being barred by the extant guidelines and/or provisions no single person can simultaneously authorise and sign on the instruments. Hence, it can easily be held beyond doubt that in no circumstances I myself authorised and got the same back to my desk for obtaining my signature on the self-same instrument. In this connection I provide a pictoral work-flow which is annexed hereto and marked with the letter-A.”

3. A show cause notice dated 18 March, 2011 was served on the petitioner wherein it was stated that the reply of the petitioner to the Bank's letter dated 22 December, 2010 was not found to be satisfactory. The petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why disciplinary action would not be taken against him in terms of Regulation 47 of the RBI (Staff) Regulations, 1948 for having committed breach of Regulation 34 read with Regulation 32 of the said Regulations.

4. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice by his letter dated 1 April, 2011.

5. A charge-sheet dated 16 May, 2011 was issued against the petitioner. The charge was as follows:-

“You are, therefore, charged with having committed acts of gross misconduct and indiscipline and thereby acting in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Bank in terms of Regulation 34 read with Regulation 32 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 by m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(Cal) 802

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTAARIJIT BANERJEE, J.Debasis Chatterjee – PetitionerVersusThe Reserve Bank of India and Others – RespondentsW.P. No. 12052 (W) of 2013Decided On : 19-11-2019

The judgment establishes the importance of procedural fairness, transparency, and the need for reasoned decisions in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and fair treatment of the accused.

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.
Debasis Chatterjee – Petitioner
Versus
The Reserve Bank of India and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 12052 (W) of 2013
Decided On : 19-11-2019