AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5252 OF 2008 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.2081 OF 2009 Avinash Salvi .... Petitioner Vs. The Chairman, National Bank for Agriculture Rural Development (NABARD), Mumbai & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. P.S. Dani with Mr. Vachan Bodke i/b M/s. Chitnis Vaithy & Co. for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Bharti for respondents 1 and 2. Ms. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for the respondent 3. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The petitioner was initially working with the Reserve Bank of India. According to the petitioner, after National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (for short, “NABARD”) was constituted by the Reserve Bank of India, he exercised the option AJN 2 and joined it in the year 1984. He was working as Assistant General Manager with NABARD at the regional office at Pune. He retired from service on 31/8/2002 as Assistant General Manager. 2. On 2/5/2002, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner containing following charges. “(i) acquiring a flat (bearing No.C-2) in the Raghuvir Cooperative Housing Society Limited at Thane in September, 1995 and subsequently disposing of the same in May, 1998 without obtaining the prior permission from the Bank as required; (ii) failing to furnish the required documents to the Bank in respect of disposal of your flat in the Mangal Prabhat Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Mulund (W), Mumbai, though Pune Regional Office had vide letter No.NB.Pn/S-1228/Staff.14/98-99 dated 18 January 1999 specifically advised you to submit the relevant Sale Deed, and documentary evidence in respect of the sale proceeds of the said flat; (iii) by suppressing the facts from the Bank about the acquisition of a flat admeasuring 1023.85 sq. ft. together with car parking space admeasuring 16 sq. mts. Jointly by your wife Smt. Mrunal and your son, Shri Mandar, who were claimed to be depondent on you, in the Chandrasheel Apartments, Deccan Gymkhana, CTS No.1202/15/E, Plot No.19 (Old), Shivaji Nagar, Pune on 09 March 1995 and continue AJN 3 to own the same as on date, as well as continuing to occupy the Bank' s flat at Boat Club Road, Pune – 411 001 allotted to you on 18 September 1990 though as per the relevant terms and conditions pertaining to the allotment of the Bank' s residential accommodation, you were required to deliver to the Competent Authority without raising any kind of objection, whatsoever, vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises in your occupation within one month of the date on which your wife and son Shri Mandar had become the owner of the above said flat, as they were declared by you as dependent on you and (iv) availing of the LTC and Medical facilities for your son Shri Mandar from the Bank upto 06 April 1999 claiming that he was dependent on you, although as reported by you, he was employed as on 09 March 1995.” 3. Charges (i) and (iii) were held fully proved. Charge (ii) was held partly proved. By order dated 17/8/2002, the following penalties were imposed on the petitioner. “In terms of Rule 47(1)(c) of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Staff) Rules, 1982, the basic pay of Shri A.S. Salvi, Assistnat General Manager, the Charge-Sheeted Officer, shall be downgraded by one stage in his incremental scale of Rs.11200-475-15475-EB-475-16900 in addition to the consequent reduction in his stagnation Increments I and II. Special Pay, Personal Allowance and Fixed Personal Allowance on permanent basis AJN 4 with effect from 17 August 2002. Further in terms of Rule 47(1)(d) of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Staff) Rules, 1982, the full amount of lease rent as per the eligibility of Shri A.S. Salvi, Assistant General Manager, from 9 March 1995 until the officer vacates the Bank' s accommodation allotted to him at Boat Club Road, Pune or the date of his retirement whichever is earlier be recovered from him after adjusting the House Rent Allowance recovered from him during the period.” 4. By office order dated 28/8/2002, the order imposing penalties was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner carried an appeal to respondent 1, who is the appellate authority. By order dated 21/10/2002, respondent 1 modified the order imposing penalty in the following manner. “In terms of Rule 47(1)(c) of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Staff) Rules, 1982, the basic pay of Shri A.S. Salvi, Assistant General Manager (Retd.), shall be downgraded by one stage in his incremental scale of Rs.11200-475- 15475-EB-475-16900 in addition to the consequent reduction in his stagnation Increments I and II, Special Pay, Personal Allowance and Fixed Personal Allowance on permanent basis with effect from 17 August 2002. Further, in terms of Rule 47(1)(d) of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Staff) Rules, 1982, 50% of the amount of the lease rent as per the eligibility of Shri AJN 5 A.S. Salvi, Assistant General Manager (Retd.) in respect of the Bank' s accommodation allotted to him at Boat Club Road, Pune, from 09 March 1995 till the date of his retirement be recovered from him after adjusting the House Rent Allowance recovered from him during the above period.” 5. The said modification was communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 1/11/2002. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner preferred yet another appeal to the appellate authority. By communication dated 17/9/2007, the petitioner was informed that the said appeal was not maintainable as there was no provision under the NABARD Staff Rules, 1982 under which such an appeal could be filed. 6. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 17/9/2007. A civil application is taken out in this writ petition seeking to amend the writ petition. The petitioner has prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to amend the writ petition and insert challenge to order dated 1/11/2002. We may note that, in fact, order dated 1/11/2002 is only an order communicating the penalty imposed on the petitioner by order dated 21/10/2002. In any case, in our opinion, such a belated challenge cannot be AJN 6 allowed to be inserted by way of amendment application made in the year 2009. 7. However, in the interest of justice, we have also examined the case of the petitioner on merits and we are of the opinion that the petitioner has no case on merits. Admittedly, the petitioner purchased premises situated at Thane in his name in the year 1995 without seeking prior permission from the bank. It is stated in the affidavit in reply filed by Mr. C.V. Subramaniam, Assistant General Manager, CVC Department of respondent 1 that such a permission was necessary in view of Circular No.151 dated 10/9/1984. It appears that the petitioner did make an application for permission but the application was belated. 8. Mr. Dani, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner had purchased the flat without taking a loan from the bank, permission of the bank was not at all necessary. We are not inclined to accept this submission. If there is a circular of the bank, that circular has to be followed. Besides, the fact that the petitioner submitted an application, though belatedly, indicates that the petitioner was aware of the circular. He cannot now AJN 7 contend that permission was not necessary. Hence, this submission of learned counsel must be rejected. 9. In the year 1995, the petitioner purchased another flat in the names of his son and wife. This flat is situated at Pune. As per the relevant terms and conditions pertaining to the allotment of bank's residential accommodation, the petitioner was required to vacate the premises allotted to him by respondent 1 within one month of the acquisition of another flat. However, the petitioner did not vacate the accommodation given to him by respondent 1. It is only in the year 2002 when the petitioner retired that the petitioner vacated the accommodation given to him. The petitioner suppressed the fact that this flat was purchased in the names of his son and wife. He had described his son and wife as his dependents. The petitioner was holding high post. He cannot feign ignorance of rules. His conduct did not befit the high post he was holding. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was asked to pay full amount of lease rent. By order dated 21/10/2002, the lease rent which was to be recovered from the petitioner was reduced to 50% by the appellate authority thus giving the petitioner considerable relief. We find that the penalty imposed on the AJN 8 petitioner is proportionate and justified. In our opinion, no interference is necessary with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. Needless to say that in view of the dismissal of the petition, the civil application is also dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [J.P. DEVADHAR, J.]