CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3863 OF 1996 In the matter of an application under Article-226 of the Constitution of India MRS.USHA SHUKLA @ USHA PANDEY, WIFE OF DAMODAR NATH SHUKLA, RESIDENT OF MAHAVIR TOLA(GANJ) P.O. EKAWANA(TETARIA) P.S. UDWANT NAGAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR, AT PRESENT 31 R.B.I. OFFICERS FLAT B.P.KOEIRALA MARGE BANK ROAD PATNA-800001. -------------------(Petitioner) Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA. 2. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH THE GOVERNOR RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE BOMBAY-400023. 3. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, BOMBAY-400023. A. DR. C. RANGARAJAN GOVERNOR B. SRI S.S. TARAPORE DEPUTY GOVERNOR. C. SRI S.P. TALWAR DEPUTY GOVERNOR. D. SRI R.V. GUPTA DEPUTY GOVERNOR. 4. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONEL MANAGEMENT RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE BOMBAY-400023. 5. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, MANAGER SECTION PATNA-800001. 6. CAPTAIN SALIL SHUKLA, (I.C.NO.50795 C/O 56.A.P.O.) A.D.C. TO GOVERNOR, JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 7. SAMIR SHUKLA C/O SALIL SHUKLA, A.D.C. TO GOVERNOR, JAMMU AND KASHMIR(I.C.NO. 50795 C/O 56.A.P.O) --------------(Respondents) ----------- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Usha Shukla @ Usha Pandey(In Person) For the Union of India : Mr. Pancham Lal Jaiswal, advocate. For the Respondent Bank : Mr. Chittranjan Sinha, Sr.Adv., Amit Prakash, advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N.Sinha,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Reserve Bank of India(hereinafter referred to as the RBI). 2. Petitioner having received letter dated - 2 - 4.4.1995, Annexure-4 from the Chief General Manager, RBI addressed to her husband Sri Damodar Nath Shukla advising Sri Shukla to vacate Flat No.31, Senior Officers’ Quarter, Reserve Bank of India, Bank Road, Patna as he stood dismissed from service of the RBI under orders dated 8.2.1995 filed this writ application praying inter alia to quash order dated 8.2.1995 asserting that her husband having qualification of M.Com.(AIIB) was initially appointed in the RBI on temporary basis with effect from 10.2.1966 and was granted permanent status with effect from 1.7.1968. Considering his clean record was promoted as Officer Grade-B with effect from 1.4.1977, Officer Grade-C with effect from 1.10.1984 and finally as Officer Grade-D. While serving as Currency Officer he suffered mental stress, sickness and was placed under suspension under office order No.194 dated 18.2.1988, Annexure-1. After the husband of the petitioner was placed under suspension a report dated 2.7.1990, Annexure-2B was submitted by Sri K.K. Sinha, Currency Officer of the RBI to the Officer-in-charge, Gandhi Maidan police station, Patna asserting that he is resident of Flat No.32, Senior Officers’ Quarter, Reserve Bank of India, Bank Road, Patna and his neighbour Sri - 3 - D.N.Shukla who resides in Flat No.31, Senior Officers’ Quarter, Reserve Bank of India, Bank Road, Patna in front of his flat has perhaps lost his mental balance as he has hit his son(Mr. K.K. Sinha’s son) and has also pushed him(Mr. K.K.Sinha) down the staircase. In the evening when Sri Sinha returned back from the RBI and tried to enter his flat he found Sri Shukla to have bolted the door from outside and was sitting in a threatening posture near his front door. Sri Shukla has not been allowing Sri Sinha and his family members to come inside Mr. Sinha’s flat. Having narrated the occurrence Sri Sinha speculated in his report that perhaps in the present mental condition Sri Shukla may hit others also and requested the Officer-in-charge, Gandhi Maidan police station to do something to restrain Sri Shukla from harming and hurting others. In the report Sri Sinha further informed the Officer-in-charge the present status of Sri Shukla that Sri Shukla is holding the post of Currency Officer(Operations) in the RBI and is presently under suspension. Aforesaid report of Sri Sinha was entered in the station diary of the Gandhi Maidan police station vide Station Diary Entry No.77 dated 2.7.1990 as is evident from photo copy of Annexure-2B to the writ application. On the - 4 - basis of the aforesaid station diary entry husband of the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna and the learned C.J.M. having heard the APP as also having appreciated the mental imbalance/condition of the husband of the petitioner under orders dated 9.7.1990, Annexure-2 directed that husband of the petitioner be taken back to the Gandhi Maidan police station by the same escort party, which has produced him in the court and the Officer-in-charge, Gandhi Maidan police station should make arrangement for his admission in the Mental Hospital, Kanke, Ranchi under proper escort and having secured admission in the mental hospital furnish necessary information. Husband of the petitioner after being treated at Mental Hospital for about three months was released from the hospital but his mental fitness was never restored and he continued to suffer mental disorder i.e. paranoid, schizophrenia and required treatment at mental hospital. Information to the aforesaid effect was given to the Manager, RBI by the petitioner under letter dated 11.6.1993, Annexure-3 enclosing medical prescription and bill showing purchase of medicine with request to grant leave to her husband until he recovers as also to release payment for meeting his - 5 - necessities and expenses on treatment. Prescription attached with the letter is of Dr. B.K. Singh, Neuro Psychiatrist dated 6.6.1993 on the basis of which medicine was also purchased for Sri D.N.Shukla on 6.6.1993. The prescription of Dr. B.K.Singh and bill for the medicine purchased is contained in Annexure-3C to this application. Along with the writ application petitioner has also enclosed certificate of Dr. B.N. Tiwary, MD, the Medical Officer of the RBI dated 8.1.1994, Annexure-3B certifying that Sri Shukla is a case of psychiatric variety and not responding to normal treatment and recommendation was made that his case be referred to a mental hospital or to a expert psychiatrist. Further certificate of Dr. S.A. Hasib, Retired Superintendent, Ranchi Mental Hospital dated 16.12.1994, Annexure- 3D is enclosed stating that Sri Shukla is a psychiatric case and needs treatment by some psychiatrist in a mental hospital. Further information regarding mental status of the husband of the petitioner as also the fact that husband of the petitioner and the petitioner were starving on account of non-release of fund by the RBI was given to the Manager, RBI by the petitioner under letter dated 10.1.1995, Annexure-3A further requesting the - 6 - RBI to compulsorily retire her husband. In paragraph-8 of the writ application it has been averred that as the husband of the petitioner was mentally sick he could not respond to the allegation set out in the charge sheet and the notices for conducting the departmental proceeding. 3. Petitioner, however having received letter dated 4.4.1995, Annexure-4 advising her husband to vacate the place of their residence i.e. Flat No.31, Senior Officers’ Quarter, Reserve Bank of India, Bank Road, Patna as Sri Shukla has been dismissed from the service of the RBI under order dated 8.2.1995 filed appeal on behalf of her husband and dispatched the same to Patna and Mumbai office of the RBI under registered cover dated 27.4.1995. Petitioner again filed another appeal on 4.8.1995, 8.8.1995 addressed to the Governor, RBI through the Chief General Manager, RBI by personally visiting the Bombay office of the RBI to avoid limitation as she was informed that earlier appeal filed on 27.4.1995 may not be entertained as the same has not been addressed to the Governor, RBI. The two memo of appeal is contained in Annexures-5 and 5/A to this application. 4. The RBI and its functionaries, - 7 - respondent nos.2 to 5 have filed their counter affidavit opposing the prayer made in the writ application asserting that Sri D.N. Shukla, Officer, RBI was dismissed from service after holding full fledged departmental proceeding. Before dealing with the merits of the proceeding it has been averred in paragraphs-4 and 5 of the counter affidavit that from the records of the RBI it does not appear that the writ petitioner is the wife of Sri Shukla as per the records of the RBI Sri Shukla at the first instance named Smt. Nibha Shukla as nominee in his provident fund account and after her death he named his sons, namely Salil Shukla and Sahir Kumar Shukla as nominees. No record of the RBI shows that Sri Shukla has ever described the petitioner as his wife. In view of the fact that writ petitioner is not the wife of Sri Shukla she has no locus standi to file the instant writ application for the reason that she has neither been appointed as legal guardian of Sri Shukla by the court of competent jurisdiction nor she has got any authority from Sri Shukla to file the writ application. In this connection, reference is also made to the provisions in the Civil Procedure Code, which provides as to how a mentally unsound person is to be represented in suit and with - 8 - reference to the said provision of the C.P.C. it is submitted that in the writ application the same provision should apply and petitioner should first seek declaration in the competent civil court that she is the wife of Sri Shukla and thereafter should maintain the application and presently the writ application be dismissed as not maintainable. 5. On merits it is submitted that Sri Shukla was proceeded pursuant to charge sheet dated 23.6.1993 charging Sri Shukla of having committed breach of office discipline and gross misconduct within the meaning of Regulations-39, 32, 37 and 47 of the Reserve Bank of India(Staff) Regulations, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Staff Regulation), which was not even received by Sri Shukla in spite of repeated attempt of the Bank to serve the same on Sri Shukla, whereafter the charge sheet was sent to Sri Shukla by the Patna office of the RBI under certificate of posting vide office letter dated 30.8.1993. It is further asserted in the counter affidavit that as the RBI had made all possible efforts to serve the charge sheet on Sri Shukla and he intentionally avoided to accept the communication, the charge sheet was taken to have been served on the chargesheeted officer. After waiting for the reply - 9 - of Sri Shukla for about six months from the date of the last letter issued to him for service of charge sheet i.e. 30.8.1993 oral enquiry was ordered by the RBI into the charges levelled against Sri Shukla. The Enquiry Officer also issued notice dated 8.3.1994 under registered post/certificate of posting fixing 31.3.1994 as the date for conducting the oral enquiry. The registered letter dated 8.3.1994 was received back in the Patna office of the RBI with remark ‘refused’ made by the postal authorities. Sri Shukla did not appear in the enquiry on 31.3.1994 and the enquiry was postponed to 28.7.1994 and fresh notice dated 21.7.1994 was issued fixing 28.7.1994 the next date of enquiry and the letter was sent to Sri Shukla through special messenger of the RBI. Sri Shukla, however did not appear in the enquiry proceeding on 28.7.1994 and the enquiry was again adjourned to 17.8.1994 and notice to that effect was given to Sri Shukla under letter dated 1.8.1994 asking him to appear on 17.8.1994, failing which the enquiry would be conducted ex parte. Notice dated 1.8.1994 was sent to Sri Shukla under registered post, which was again received back by the Patna office of the RBI with remark ‘refused’. In paragraph-8D at page 41 and 42 of the brief it has - 10 - been averred by the RBI that copy of letter sent to the chargesheeted officer, Sri Shukla through a messenger on 28.8.1994 was not accepted by him and the same was therefore personally slipped in the flat occupied by him, by the caretaker. 6. With reference to the averments made above it is submitted that in spite of every possible attempt made to serve the notice that the enquiry shall be conducted on 17.8.1994 Sri Shukla did not appear and ex parte enquiry was conducted against him on 17.8.1994 in which two management witnesses were examined who supported the charge levelled against him. 7. The Enquiry Officer submitted report dated 15.10.1994, which was considered by the competent authority and the competent authority having considered the conduct of Sri Shukla concluded findings dated 23.11.1994 observing that in spite of repeated notices, communications made to Sri Shukla he had shown utter disregard and indifference towards the enquiry, in the circumstances, the Enquiry Officer was justified in holding the ex parte enquiry. The competent authority also observed that principles of natural justice as also the related procedure was observed - 11 - during the enquiry. The competent authority not only agreed with the conclusion but also with the reasonings of the Enquiry Officer. The competent authority further observed that the charge against Sri Shukla of unauthorized absence, leaving office earlier than the closing time without prior permission, refusal to accept cases marked to him for disposal by his superiors and insulting behaviour towards his superior revealed his total indifference, absolute dereliction of duties as well as insubordination. The competent authority also noticed the earlier charge sheet issued to Sri Shukla alleging gross misconduct dated 7.7.1987 and 15.4.1988 as also the fact that taking a lenient view of the matter he was imposed punishment of reduction of pay by three stages for three years and reduction of pay by one stage for three years respectively vide order dated 8.6.1991 and 20.5.1993 respectively with expectation that he would improve his conduct and attitude towards his superior. The competent authority, however was of the opinion that the sympathy shown to Sri Shukla earlier has been misplaced. According to the competent authority Sri Shukla had lost all confidence reposed in him by the RBI and has also shown total disinclination to attend - 12 - office. Taking into account over all circumstances of the case, the competent authority was of the opinion that there is no alternative but to impose the ultimate penalty of dismissal on Sri Shukla in terms of Regulation-47(1)(e) of the Regulation. 8. Annexing the copy of the finding of the competent authority dated 23.11.1994 Sri D.N. Shukla was served with the second show cause notice dated 8.12.1994 proposing the punishment of dismissal under registered post/certificate of posting which returned undelivered by the postal authorities with remark ‘refused’, whereafter another copy of the second show cause notice dated 18.12.1994 was sent to Sri Shukla through the Security Officer in person, which was dropped inside his flat through the letter box opening into his flat. In spite of granting more than adequate time to Sri Shukla to reply to the second show cause notice Sri Shukla did not file his reply, the competent authority whereafter concluded that Sri Shukla had nothing to represent against the proposed penalty of dismissal and was dismissed under order dated 8.2.1995 after regularizing his entire absence by granting him extra ordinary leave without counting for increment and pension, if opted for. In paragraph-8J of the counter - 13 - affidavit it has been specifically averred that it was never brought to the notice of the RBI either by the petitioner or by any other person on behalf of Sri Shukla that Sri Shukla was suffering from any mental illness. In paragraph-8K it has been averred by the RBI that petitioner never showed any concern for Sri Shukla when various notices regarding the conduction of disciplinary proceeding was being sent to Sri Shukla, which is indicative of the fact that writ petitioner is not the wife of Sri D.N.Shukla. In paragraph-8L it has been averred by the RBI that petitioner had shown concern in the matter only when the RBI served notice for eviction of Sri Shukla from his official residence i.e. Flat No.31, Senior Officers’ Quarter, Reserve Bank of India, Bank Road, Patna. In paragraph-8M it has been averred that Sri Shukla was given full opportunity to defend himself but he did not show any concern and remained indifferent towards the conduction of the disciplinary proceeding, the competent authority had no option but to pass dismissal order. In paragraph-8N it has been averred that Sri Shukla had the right to appeal against dismissal order and he having obtained the copy of the charge sheet and the connected papers on 8.8.1995 so as to enable him to file appeal but till - 14 - the date of affirming the counter affidavit on 28.9.1996, Bank has not received any appeal from him, as such the writ application is fit to be dismissed. 9. Having made the aforesaid statements as to how the disciplinary proceeding was conducted against Sri Shukla pursuant to charge sheet dated 23.6.1993 and the dismissal order dated 8.2.1995 passed against him, the authorities of the Bank proceeded to dispute the submission made in the writ application that petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Sri D.N. Shukla, Officer, RBI on the ground that there is no material on the record of the RBI to show that the writ petitioner is the wife of Sri Shukla. In reply to paragraph-4 of the writ application it was specifically stated that Sri Shukla did not get mentally derailed on account of hard work as alleged in the writ application. In response to the averments made in the written report of Sri K.K. Sinha, Currency Officer of the Bank dated 2.7.1990 asserting that he is resident of Flat No.32, Senior Officers’ Quarter, Reserve Bank of India, Bank Road, Patna and his neighbour Sri D.N. Shukla who resides in Flat No.31, Senior Officers’ Quarter, Reserve Bank of India, Bank Road, Patna in front of - 15 - his flat has perhaps lost his mental balance as he has hit his son(Mr. K.K. Sinha) and has also pushed him(K.K.Sinha) down the staircase. In the evening when Sri Sinha returned back from the RBI and tried to enter his flat he found Sri Shukla to have bolted the door from outside and was sitting in a threatening posture near his front door. Sri Shukla has not been allowing Sri Sinha and his family members to come inside Mr. Sinha’s flat. Having narrated the occurrence Sri Sinha speculated in his report that perhaps in the present mental condition Sri Shukla may hit others also and requested the Officer-in-charge, Gandhi Maidan police station to do something to restrain Sri Shukla from harming and hurting others. In the report Sri Sinha further informed the Officer-in-charge the present status of Sri Shukla that he is holding the post of Currency Officer (operations) in the RBI and is under suspension. Aforesaid report of Sri Sinha was entered in the station diary of the Gandhi Maidan police station vide Station Diary Entry No.77 dated 2.7.1990 on the basis of which Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna passed order dated 9.7.1990, Annexure-2 series for treatment of Sri Shukla at mental Hospital, Kanke, Ranchi and with reference - 16 - to the statements made in paragraphs-5 and 6 of the writ application, the counter affidavit in paragraph- 14(i) stated that those facts are denied for want of knowledge as the report of Sri K.K.Sinha, Currency Officer dated 2.7.1990 and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna dated 9.7.1990 was not brought to its notice either by the petitioner or by any other person at the relevant period. It was also averred in the said paragraph that had Sri Shukla been declared as of unsound mind, the petitioner could have applied to a court of competent jurisdiction for appointment of legal guardian of Sri Shukla so as to protect his interest in the disciplinary proceeding conducted against him but neither any such step was taken by the petitioner nor was the RBI informed about the same. In paragraph14(ii) with reference to the statement made in paragraph-7 of the writ application and the contents of letter of the petitioner dated 11.6.1993, Annexure-3 it has been submitted that petitioner pleaded monetary difficulties and requested for grant of leave to Sri Shukla but her request was not considered as petitioner had no locus standi to apply for leave on behalf of Sri Shukla and for other connected reliefs as she is not the wife of Sri Shukla - 17 - as per the records of the RBI. As regards letter dated 10.1.1995 it was submitted that thereunder petitioner again requested for grant of loan for treatment of Sri Shukla and also requested that petitioner may be given job in the RBI or in the alternative Sri Shukla be retired compulsorily and consequential financial benefits be granted but such request was also not considered as petitioner was in no way connected with the Bank and is not the wife of Sri Shukla as per the Bank’s records nor she was appointed as legal guardian of Sri Shukla by the court of competent jurisdiction, as such, had no locus standi to suggest that she is wife of Sri Shukla and can make request on his behalf and the request made in the two letters dated 11.6.1993 and 10.1.1995 was not acceded to. In paragraph-14(iii) with reference to the averments made in paragraph-8 of the writ application it has been submitted that it was never brought to the notice of the Bank either by the petitioner or by any other person on behalf of Sri Shukla that he was mentally sick and was not in a position to respond to the charge sheet dated 23.6.1993 and the notices issued pursuant thereto. As regards notice to vacate the official residence dated 4.4.1995, Annexure-4 it has been submitted in - 18 - paragraph-14(iii) that the same was issued to Sri Shukla and not to the petitioner and he was advised to vacate the official residence of the Bank, which was allotted to him while he was in service and he was not entitled to continue therein after his dismissal. In this connection, it was also submitted that petitioner never showed any concern or interest in the disciplinary proceeding conducted against Sri Shukla till Sri Shukla was not dismissed by the Bank, petitioner had no locus standi to even question the contents of notice to vacate the official residence as she is not the wife of Sri Shukla as per records of the Bank and she has not been authorized by Sri Shukla to represent him nor she has been appointed as legal guardian of Sri Shukla by the court of competent jurisdiction. In paragraph-14(iv) of the counter affidavit Bank denied the assertion of the petitioner that she came to know about the dismissal of her husband Sri Shukla from the Bank service from the contents of letter dated 4.4.1995, Annexure-4 and stated that in her letter dated 4.8.1995 the petitioner requested for quashing the dismissal order of Sri Shukla from the Bank’s service as also requested the Bank to give her job in the Bank in place of Sri Shukla. In her letter received by - 19 - the Bank on 8.8.1995 petitioner demanded pensionary benefits for Sri Shukla and also requested that Sri Shukla may be given six months’ time to shift to another residence by which time the house under construction would be nearing completion. It was also averred in the said paragraph that on 8.8.1995 Sri Shukla had come to the Patna office of the RBI and requested for copy of the charge sheet and other related papers so as to enable him to file appeal, copy of letter of Sri Shukla dated 8.8.1995 has been annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure-G. In the same paragraph it was also averred that no action was taken on the basis of letter dated 8.8.1995 received by the RBI from the petitioner as till the date of filing of the counter affidavit no memorandum of appeal was received from Sri Shukla. In paragraphs-15 and 16 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that dismissal order dated 8.2.1995 passed against Sri Shukla is just reasonable and commensurate with the misconduct proved against him. Sri Shukla refused to accept the charge sheet