http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  7803 of 2002

PETITIONER: Reserve Bank of India & Another  

RESPONDENT: C. L. Toora & Others

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/04/2004

BENCH: CJI,S.B. SINHA & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

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 12.12.2001 directing the  appellant to consider respondent no.1 for promotion to grade-D  ignoring the fact that a high power Selection 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 1.10.1988, the Currency Officer of the appellant  asked respondent no.1 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.1 herein refused to comply with the orders of the  currency officer stating that he cannot be asked to discharge the  functions of Grade-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").  In the  preliminary enquiry preceding the charge-sheet, the said  respondent in reply to show-cause notice stated that on  1.10.1988, seven Grade-B officers were 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 the work of Claims  Department except opening and closing 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.1 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 terms of the executive policy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

formulated by the Management in 1983 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.1 herein secured 162  marks and consequently he failed to qualify.  At this stage, it  may be mentioned that the said respondent was interviewed at  New Delhi center on 2.6.1989, wherein he was successful but  over all he did not secure 170 marks, hence not found suitable  for the panel year 1989.  On 23.10.1990, he filed writ petition  No.5483 of 1990 challenging the charge-sheet and his non- selection.  During the pendency of the writ petition, disciplinary  enquiry was completed and the competent authority imposed  the minor penalty of lowering his substantive pay by one stage  permanently, against which he filed departmental appeal, which  was also rejected on 4.8.1994.  Respondent no.1 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 also found fault with the non-selection of  respondent no.1 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  162 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.  In the circumstances, the  entire selection was set aside and the appellants were directed to  reframe selection and consider the said respondent for  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 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.1 was not such 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 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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Court of unquestionable impartiality who had no axe to grind.   He contended 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 that  the High Court had erred in fixing qualifying marks for  interview.  In this connection, it was pointed out that the  Selection Board had prescribed 100 marks out of 300 for  interview which the High Court has held to be on the higher  side.  He submitted that the High Court had erred in coming to  the conclusion that non-selection of respondent no.1 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.B. Rohtagi, learned senior  counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 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 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 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.1 for promotion from 1989.  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  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.  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.1 for promotion to Grade-D from 1989.  

       For the aforestated reasons, we hold that there was no  misconduct committed by respondent no.1 and the appellant  had erred in imposing the 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.1 for  promotion to scale-D from 1989.

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4