RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND .ANR.

A v.

C.L. TOORA AND ORS.

APRIL 5, 2004

[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Promotion-Reserve Bank of India-Promotion ji-om Grade-C to Gradec D posts-Selection by High Power Selection Board-In terms of a policy formulated by Management, marks prescribed for service record and interview as also qualifYing marks out of aggregate marks:__A Bank Officer having failed to qun/ifjJ in the selection challenging the selection procedure and criteria adopted by Selection Board-Held, the Board was entitled to formulate its own procedure-On facts, it cannot be said that Board took into account D extraneous factors . . ,

-r Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948:

Regulation 32-Disciplinary inquiry-Bank Officer-Charge-sheeted for insubordination as he failed to comply with orders of senior officer-Delinquent E replied that he did all the work except opening and closing the vault as he never operated vault earlier-Penalty of lowering his substantive pay by one stage permanent(y-Held, conduct of delinquent was not such as to warrant disciplinwy action-There is no insubordination or disobedience.

~ Respondent No. I, an Assistant Currency Officer Grade-C, in the F

appellant-Bank was issued a charge-sheet for insubordination under Regulation 32 of the Reserve Bank of India (Stafl) Regulations, 1948, on the ground that he refused to comply with orders of the Currency Officer by which he was asked to look after the wcrk of another Assistant Currency Officer Grade B, who had proceeded on casual leave. The G

respondent in his reply to show-cause stated that he looked after all the work except opening and closing of vault as he had never operated the valllt earlier. His explanation was not accepted and he was awarded a minor penalty of lowering his substantive pay by one stage permanently. 847 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200-l] 3 S.CR.

A Meanwhile, selection process for promotion from Grade-C to Grade D commenced and a High Power Selection Board presided by a retired High

Court Judge was constituted. In terms of the policy formulated by the Management, 200 marks were prescribed for service record and I 00 marks

for interview; and the candidates were required to obtain qualifying marks B of 170 out of 300. Respondent No. I failed to qualify as he secured only

162 marks. Respondent No. I challenged his non-selection before the High Court in a writ petition wherein he also challenged the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment awarded to him.

The High Court held that the non-selection of respondent No. I C because of the procedure and criteria adopted by the Selection Board was

improper. It set aside the entire selection and directed the appellants to reframe selection and consider respondent No. I for promotion. The High Court also held that the charge of insubordination was not proved.

Aggrieved, the Bank filed the present appeal.

D It was contended for the appellant that it was open to the Selection Board to formulate its own procedure in the matter of allotment of marks for interview, written test and performance appraisal and the High Court erred in fixing qualifying marks for interview.

E Allowing the appeal in part, the Court

HELD: I. The High Court erred in setting aside the selection and in directing the appellant bank to consider respondent No. I for promotion from 1989. The appellant constituted high power Selection Board presided by a retired High Court Judge. The Selection Board held interviews of F candidates from various centers at all India level. The Board was entitled

to formulate its own procedure. On facts it cannot be said that the Board took into account extraneous factors. (852-D, F-GI

2.1. As regards the penalty imposed on the respondent, the High G Court was right in holding that the conduct of respondent No. I was not such as to warrant disciplinary action. [851-CI

There was no misconduct committed by respondent No. I and the appellant erred in imposing the penalty of lowering his substantive pay by one stage permanently. There is no insubordination or disobedience H as alleged. In the preliminary enquiry, respondent No.I has given his

R.a.1. r. c.1.. rnoR1\ IKAl'AIJIA .1.1 849

explanation. He has stated in his reply that he had no experience of opening A and closing the vault and that he did all the work except opening and closing of vault. In the circumstances, High Court was right in holding that there was no foundation for alleged misconduct.

1852-H; 853-A; 851-C-DI

CIVIL APPELL.ATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7803 of B 2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2001 of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 5483 of 1990.

Harish N. Salve, H.S. Parihar, Kuldeep Parihar and D.K. Sharma for c

the Appellant.

Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J.M. Khanna and Ms. Shefali Khanna Sethi for the Respondent.

D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KAPADIA, J, This appeal by special leave is filed by the Reserve Bank of India against the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur dated 12.12.200 I directing the appellant to consider respondent no. I for promotion to grade-D ignoring the fact that a high power Selection E Board presided by a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court had found the respondent unsuitable for selection to the said grade.

The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows.

. On I. I 0. l 98S, the Currency Officer of the appellant asked respondent F

no. I who was Assistant Currency Officer in Grade-C to look after, on 3.10.1988, the duties of M.S. Janagal, Assistant Currency Officer (Grade-B), who had proceeded suddenly on casual leave. It is the case of the appellant that respondent no. I herein refused to comply with the orders of the currency officer stating that he cannot be asked to discharge the functions of Grade- G B officer. Accordingly, the said respondent was charge-sheeted on 1.12.1989 for insubordination under regulation 32 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the said regulations"). !n the preliminary enquiry preceding the charge-sheet. the said respondent in reply to show-cause notice stated that on I. I 0. 1988, seven Grade-B officers were H

850 SUPREME COURT REPORrS

[2004] 3 S.C.R.

A present on duty and only one of them Mr. M.S. Janagal had applied for casual leave; that he had never operated the vault in the past: that vault duties were entrusted to Grade-B officers and as such, except in emergency, a Grade-C officer was entrusted with such duties and, therefore, he did not intend insubordination. In fact, he pointed out that on 3.10.1988, he did all B the work of Claims Department except opening and closmg of vault. By his reply to show-cause notice, he. further pointed out that he was under mental

agony on that day in the background enumerated in para 2 of his reply to the show-cause notice. The appellant however did not accept the explanation of the respondent. In the meantime, the appellant undertook selection process in the matter of promotions of officers from Grade-C to Grade-D. Respondent no. I herein was one of the candidates. The appellant constituted a high power Selection Board presided by Mr. Justice A.S. Ginwala, a retired judge of Bombay High Court. The Selection Board held several meetings at Calcutta, New Delhi, Bombay and Bangalore, as promotions were to be made at all India level. The Selection Board recommended candidates for promotion in D terms of the executive policy formulated by the Management in I 983 and which was in existence in 1989. Under the said policy, a candidate had to secure in all 170 marks out of 300 for empanelment for promotion to Grade- D. Respondent no. I herein secured I 62 marks and consequently he failed to qualify. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the sai<if respondent was E interviewed at New Delhi center on 2.6.1989, wherein he was successful but over all he did not secure I 70 marks, hence not found suitable for the panel year 1989. On 23.10.1990, he filed writ petition No.5483of1990 challenging the charge-sheet and his non-selection. During the pendency of the writ pefaion, disciplinary enquiry was completed and the competent authority imposecl the minor penalty of lowering his substantive pay by one stage F permanently, against which he filed departmental appeal, which was also rejected on 4.8. I 994. Respondent no. I filed an amendment application to the writ petition challenging the enquiry proceedings as well as the order of punishment. By impugned judgment, the writ petition was allowed on the ground that the charge of insubordination was not proved. The High Court G also found fault with the non-selection of respondent no. I on the ground that the procedure and the criteria adopted by the Selection Board was improper.

It doubted the decision of the Selection Board in awarding only I 62 marks on the ground that the said respondent had obtained the requisite 32 marks in the interview but he was given only 130 marks on performance appraisal.

H In the circumstances, the entire selection was set aside and the appellants

--<

R.B.I. v. C.L. TOORA [KAPADIA . .I.] 851

were directed to reframe selection and consider the said respondent for A promotion to scale-D from 1989. Aggrieved, the Reserve Bank of India has come to this Court by way of this appeal.

Two issues arise for determination, firstly, whether the appellant was justified in imposing the above penalty of lowering the substantive pay of the B respondent by one stage permanently; and secondly, whether the High Court was right in setting aside the entire selection and directing the appellant to promote respondent no.1 to scale-D w.e.f. 1989.

On the first point, we are of the view that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the conduct of respondent no. I was not such C as to warrant disciplinary action. As stated above, in the preliminary enquiry, respondent no.1 has given his explanation vide letter dated 12.6.1989. We have gone through the letter, as discussed above. Regulation 32 states that every employee shall obey directions given to him from time to time by his superiors. In the present case, we do not find any insubordination or D disobedience as alleged. He has stated in his reply that he has no experience of opening and closing the vault and that he did all the work of Claims Department on 3.10.1988, except opening and closing of vault. In the circumstances, we are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court in the matter of disciplinary proceedings that there was no foundation for alleged misconduct.

The second issue is whether the High Court was right in setting aside

the entire selection with the direction to the appellant to consider the said respondent for promotion to scale-D from 1989. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that respondent F No. 1 was interviewed along with other candidates by the Selection Board.

On 29.5.1990, respondent no.1 was advised about his non-selection and thereafter he had appeared in interview four times i.e. on 8.6.1990, 3.9.1991, 6.4.1992 and 5.2.1993 but was found unsuitable. It was submitted that the Selection Board was presided by a retired Judge of the High Court of unquestionable impartiality who had no axe to grind. He contended that it G was open to the Selection Board to formulate its own procedure in the matter of allotment of marks for interview, written test and performance appraisal and that the High Court had erred in fixing qualifying marks for interview.

In this connection, it w.as pointed out that the Selection Board had prescribed 100 marks out of 300 for interview which the High Court has held to be on H

8-1 )~ SUPRl:ME COURT REPORTS


A the higher side. He submitted that the High Court had erred in coming to the conclusion that non-selection of respondent no. I was on account of extraneous factors. He submitted that the covering letter enclosing the mark-sheet has been signed by all the members of the selection board. Mr. Salve produced before us the entire record. Per contra, Mr. A. 8. Rohtagi, learned senior B counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. I submitted that the individual members of the Selection Board have not assigned individual marks in the mark-sheet and that all the members have allotted equal marks and, therefore, the procedure was faulty. He submitted that the mark list did not bear the signatures of the members of the Board though all the members have signed the forwarding letter. It was urged that no merit list was prepared and no C policy was produced before the High Court on the basis of which marks came to be given. He submitted that the respondent was successful in the interview and for extraneous reasons, he was given less marks for his performance and consequently he could not obtain 170 marks. It was submitted that the High Court had examined the entire record and has given finding of D fact and, therefore, this Court should not interfere in this matter under Article 136 of the Constitution.

We are of the view that the High Court had erred in setting aside the selection and in directing the appellant bank to consider respondent no. I for promotion from J 989. The appellant had constituted high power Selection

Board presided by a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court. The Selection Board, as stated above, held interviews of candidates from various centers at all India level. The Selection Board held its sitting at Calcutta, New Delhi, Bombay and Bangalore. It provided for 200 marks for service records and

100 marks for interview in terms of the policy formulated by the management F as far back as July, 1983. Under that policy, the candidates were required to obtain aggregate qualifying marks of 170 out of 300. The Board was entitled to formulate its own procedure. Moreover, we have perused the records and proceedings of the Selection Board produced before us. The forwarding letter enclosing the mark-sheets has been signed by all the members of the Board.

G There is no interpolation in the marks given to the candidates as alleged. On

facts it cannot be said, as held by the High Court, that the Board had taken into account extraneous factors. Hence, the High Court erred in setting aside the selection and directing the appellant bank to consider the case of respondent no. I for promotion to Grade-D from 1989.

H For the aforestated reasons, we hold that there was no misconduct

.....

' . ...

R.B.I. v. C.L. TOORA [KAPADJA . .I.] 853

committed by respondent no.1 and the appellant had erred in imposing the A penalty on respondent no.1 of lowering his substantive pay by one stage permanently. However, we hold that the High Court had erred in setting aside the selection made by the Selection Board and directing the appellant to reframe selection and consider respondent no. I for promotion to scale-D from 1989.

Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed, with no order as to costs.

R.P.

Appeal partly allowed.