Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) Challenging the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2007 passed by the Learned Trial Judge in writ petition No.62 of 2007 along with other two applications G. A. No.602 of 2007 and G. A. No.674 of 2007, this appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner as appellant. Writ application stood dismissed by a reasoned decision on considering the limitation to exercise the power of judicial review by the writ Court with reference to challenge of a charge- sheet to set it aside at the initial stage as issued by initiating a departmental proceeding by the Competent Authority.
(2.) The challenge in the writ application is the charge memo in a departmental proceeding issued on 15th December, 2006 which read such: RESERVE BANK OF INDIA www.rbi.org.in DAPM(Kol) Disc. 9134/03.50.01/2006-07 December 15, 2006 CONFIDENTIAL Shri Prabhat Kumar Chakravarty Assistant Manager, (Emp.No.0144, P.F. Index No.CC-0227) Department of Statistical Analysis And Computer Services, Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata (Through The Director, DESACS, RBI, Kolkata) Dear Sir, Staff- Class-I-Discipline-Show Cause Please refer to your reply dated November 16, 2006 to the show cause notice issued to you vide DAPM(Kol) Disc. 7190/03.50.01/2006-07 dated November 9, 2006. The undersigned has gone through the contentions advanced by you in your above letter and found that your reply to the show cause is not tenable and acceptable to the bank. You are, therefore, advised that the charge as set out in paragraph 3 below has been framed against you in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 2 hereunder. 2. It has been noticed that along with your representation dated 9 August, 2006 (but signed on August 14, 2006) to the Appellate authority, the Regional Director, Kolkata, in connection with the Charge sheet vide DAPM(Kol) Disc. 14256/03.50.01/2004-05 dated May 05, 2005, you enclosed a copy of one sensitive and secret document containing the signatures of the officers of the PAD, RBI, Kolkata, which you procured without having prior permission of the Bank while discharging your duties as Assistant Manager, General Section of PAD, RBI, Kolkata. You were not entitled to acquire/possess the same for your personal use without permission of the Bank. Further, your acquisition of the document from the department has also been admitted by you in your aforesaid representation dated August 09, 2006. Your reply is not, therefore, convincing and tenable, rater misleading. Your above act amounts to pilferage of official documents. 3. You are, therefore, charged with having committed acts of gross misconduct and indiscipline and thereby acting in a manner detrimental to the interests of the Bank by contravening Regulation 33 of the Reserve Ban of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. 4. Your said act amounts to misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 47(1) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations 1948.You have thus rendered yourself liable for disciplinary action and this charge-sheet is accordingly issued to you under Regulation 47 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations 1948. 5. You are hereby called upon to answer the above charge in writing or in person within 10 days from the date of receipt of this charge-sheet. In the latter case, your defence will be taken down in writing and read out to you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Illegible (Lily Vadera) Deputy Manager (Banking)"
(3.) The said charge memo has been challenged on the ground that the relevant document containing signatures of officers of Public Accounts Department, Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata which admittedly was procured without prior permission of the Competent Authority and submitted before a superior authority namely the Appellate Authority, the Regional Director, Kolkata with reference to grievance against another charge-sheet dated 5th May, 2005, practically was not a sensitive and secret document since the said document which was submitted on 9th August, 2006 to the appellate authority was supplied to the petitioner under The Rights to Information Act, 2005 by the Competent Authority of Reserve Bank of India namely the Chief Public Information Officer by his communication dated 15th September, 2006. The communication dated 15th September, 2006 read such: RESERVE BANK OF INDIA www.rbi.org.in DAPM.CO.RIA. 1564/07.50.01/2006-07 September 15, 2006 Shri Prabhat Kumar Chakravarty C/o. Reserve Bank of India, Public Accounts Department, N. S. Road, Kolkata-700 001 Dear Sir, The Rights to Information Act, 2005 - Query Our Ref. No.RIA 232/2006-07 Please refer to your application dated August 21, 2006, submitted at Kolkata Office. In this matter we advise the following. 1. The system of maintaining a delivery book for such type of intra-departmental communication did not exist in PAD, Kolkata. It may also be mentioned that you were posted in the capacity of Staff Officer (general section) and one of your duties was to receive all letters/ circulars (both internal and external) and put it up to Assistant General Manager for perusal and necessary action. 2. The label on the Inward dak-box (inward letters received from all sources) is non-permanent in nature. At the end of the month, a new label is pasted on the dak box. Therefore, we do not have information sought at serial No. 2 of your request. 3. The copy of signature sheet of all officers of PAD for relevant quarter is enclosed. If you desire to prefer an appeal against this reply, the same may be preferred within 30 days of receipt of this letter to Dr. Rakesh Mohan, Deputy governor, Reserve Bank of India, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Yours faithfully, Sd/- H. N. Prasad H. N. Prasad Chief Public Information Officer Enclo: As above.";