RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. versus C.L. TOORA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 847 · Decided: 05-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
J 
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 Grade- c 
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 
848 
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 
-~ 
\ 
' 
I 
•( 
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 vaul

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.