RBI Staff Regulations | Personal Dispute Can't Be Treated As Service Misconduct Without Nexus To Employment: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that an act of an employee arising out of a purely personal dispute cannot be treated as misconduct under Regulations 32, 34 and 47(1) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 unless it has a nexus with the employment or affects the discipline, functioning or reputation of the employer.Regulation 32 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 obliges every employee of the Bank to abide by the Regulations and obey the orders of those under whose control he is placed. Regulation 34 requires him to serve the Bank honestly and faithfully and to show courtesy and attention in dealings with officers of Government and the Bank's constituents. Regulation 47(1) sets out the penalties, ending with dismissal, for breach of the Regulations or discipline or any other act of misconduct.The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held,“The concept of misconduct in service jurisprudence is required to be examined in the context of the service rules governing the employee and the nature of conduct alleged against him and there has to be some nexus in between an action and the employment. Every alleged personal act of an employee cannot be treated as misconduct unless it has a nexus with the employment or affects the discipline, functioning or reputation of the employer.”The respondent, a Class-III employee working as Assistant Word Processor at Kanpur, was posted in the Rajbhasha room when a woman visited his office on and was allegedly slapped and ousted by him, after which he left without his seniors' permission. She was later identified as Ms. Munni Rai alias Meenu, who had obtained a visitor's pass claiming to be his wife. The first chargesheet alleged that this conduct had an adverse impact on the dignity of the workplace and the discipline of the RBI.She thereafter complained that the respondent had assaulted her at her residence. Replying to the show cause notice, he enclosed a notarised affidavit in her name stating that the complaints were false and the disputes amicably settled. She denied executing it. A second chargesheet alleged that he had filed a forged affidavit to mislead the disciplinary proceedings.In a common enquiry into both chargesheets, the Enquiry Officer held the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent under Regulation 47(1)(e) and the Appellate Authority affirmed that order.A single judge allowed the respondent's writ petition, set aside both orders and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits and costs of Rs. 2,500/-, holding that the allegations did not constitute misconduct and that the enquiry was vitiated by breach of natural justice. The RBI filed an intra court appeal.The Court observed that Ms. Munni Rai was neither a bank employee nor a visitor who had come for official work. It observed that both authorities had held the charge proved without examining how the conduct constituted misconduct under the Regulations. Relying on Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, where the Supreme Court held that the causal connection between the misconduct and the employment must be real and substantial, immediate and proximate and not remote or tenuous, it found the single judge's view soundly reasoned.“Seen in that light, the alleged act of slapping a (lady) visitor inside office premises, when the latter had come to pay a personal visit and forcing her to leave may never be described as an act of misconduct under Regulation 32, 34 or 47 of the Regulations.”The Court held that to fall within Regulations 32 and 34, the act must either violate an order of the RBI or a superior officer, or involve dishonesty, unfaithfulness, discourtesy or lack of attention towards a banking or official transaction. On the respondent leaving the office without permission, it held that he may be guilty of misconduct under Regulation 47, but that a solitary instance at 4 pm following a brawl with a personal visitor could not by itself warrant dismissal.On the charge of forgery, the Court held that although the strict rules of evidence do not govern departmental enquiries, the employer must still establish the charge on reliable material, and the burden of proving the reliability of a document on which the proceedings depend rests on it. It held that in the present case the finding rested only on the complainant's denial. It noted that the RBI took no step to have the disputed signature verified or to summon the Notary, and the Enquiry Officer noticed no prima facie disparity in it.The Court held that this burden could not be shifted to the respondent by pointing to his failure to lead defence evidence.The Court further relied on Surekha Domaji Bele Vs. Executive Engineer, Testing Division, MSEDCL, where the Supreme Court held that dismissal is the severest penalty in service jurisprudence and must remain reserved for the most serious misconduct.“We cannot trivialise slapping a person or ...

RBI Staff Regulations | Personal Dispute Can't Be Treated As Service Misconduct Without Nexus To Employment: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

RBI Staff Regulations | Personal Dispute Can't Be Treated As Service Misconduct Without Nexus To Employment: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers