I was employed in the Reserve Bank of India  from 25.9.1953.

 

On 31.12.1981, a case was filed in the magistrate court against me by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

 

On 24.9.1983, I was suspended by the RBI without assigning any reason.

 

On 01.04.1985, a charge sheet was issued to me by the RBI. The charge sheet used more or less the same language as the chargesheet filed in Court by the CBI. Soon after, a revised charge sheet was issued.

 

 I was asked by the RBI to meet the DSP CBI by letter dated 14.02.1981. Following the filing of the charge sheet by the CBI on 31.12.1981, the manager (then Sri S.n. Bagai) sent for me and wondered how I came into the picture. To my answer that my name might not be in the list of those charge-sheeted, he said my name was “very much there”. This episode indicates that there was nothing against me in any internal enquiry of the Bank and some interested persons at Bangalore/Bombay somehow managed to have a case foistered on me. Sri S.n. Bagai who retired as an executive director of the Bank took charge from Sri J. Ranganatha Rao. The latter was then  manager (now designated Regional Director) when the rumour mills were grinding to capacity.

 

In this connection I would like to state that the CBI officers were polite and courteous to me. The mischief emanated from the RBI side. I surmise that unknown officers of the RBI insisted on my name being included in the charge sheet.

 

The proceedings of the domestic enquiry, the conclusion drawn by the presenting officer(PO),enquiry officer(EO) and the two competent authorities (CA) are enclosed for perusal. My appeal and the appellate authority’s reply are also enclosed as also the order passed by the Honorable High Court of Karnataka on my writ petition challenging the show cause notice issued to me by CA, Sri Razdan.

 

Sri J.P Awasthi who charge sheeted me (copy enclosed) retired in Oct 1988. I met his successor and asked for an early decision in the matter of suspension as the date of my retirement (28.02.1993) was approaching. He mentioned about Sri J.P Awasthi’s recommendation and advised me to await Central Office decision. This was a revelation to me. The case against me has to fall due to the intervention of the Central Office. I am unable to recall the name of this manager. He, I suppose, handed over charge to Sri S.N. Razdan (whom I refer to as second CA). Sri Razdan issued the show cause for dismissal which was challenged by me through a writ petition. The records of further developments are enclosed in the file.

 

The above paragraph is included to bring out the fact that there was a manager who was preceded by Sri. J.P Awasthi and was later followed by Sri S.N Razdan.

 

It is this fact (that there was a manager between the time of Sri J.P Awasthi’s retirement and Sri S.N Razdan’s tenure) and the information that a final decision was pending with Central Office that are crucial to an evaluation of the competence of Sri S.N Razdan and indeed the case.

 

Sri S.N Razdan has, only to his mind, raised a big question – why was not the issue of the 22nd packet raised during the enquiry proceedings. The issue was raised and assurances were given by the PO & EO that the 22nd packet would be shown at the appropriate time. Sri Razdan should be educated about his duty, to produce the evidence – registers, records and exhibits at the proper time. The onus for producing them at the enquiry rested with the EO, PO & CA. Indeed, if the packet was available at all, it was not late to produce it at any time before the final order. It is not late even now. Instead the PO (who was legally educated) accounted for the 22nd packet in an illusory manner. The truth is that the CBI CFSL report is in respect of only 21 packets [Annexure - extracts from CFSL report in respect of 21 packets ]. The presenting officer(PO),enquiry officer(EO) and competent authority(CA)(Sri Razdan) have conspired to destroy the evidence.

 

Evidence in the form of records, registers and exhibits were produced and used selectively. What did not suit the requirements of the PO, EO, CA & AA (Appellate Authority) was rejected as irrelevant and extraneous. The AA in rejecting the appeal (page 6 para viii) admits that records “demanded by Appellant were not produced during the enquiry as possibly they have been destroyed in the normal course depending upon the period of preservation”. It is not my duty to teach the AA about the work of the Issue Department. All I can say is that the ID manual in use then prescribed periods of preservation for various registers and records. There is a register showing the destruction of records. The register is preserved permanently. Further, records and registers are destroyed in chronological order. Entries are made in a permanently preserved register and after a process of checks and orders, the currency officer; (head of the Issue Department) deputes an officer to oversee the destruction.

The word “demanded” used by the AA is itself improper. I only asked for the records. Register and records asked for by me related to the period intervening between those available. In other words, the records and registers in use before and after the requisitioned volumes were available. The requisitioned records and registers were simply removed and made unavailable for my examination. This was done to save certain officers in different ranks who ought to have been held responsible for the loss to the Bank.

 

It is remarkable that an executive director of the Bank has dealt with my request in such a casual manner. One can understand. I have been made a scapegoat.    

       

The AA has spoken of “some delay” in the issue of charge sheet (page 9, para xi). It is a long delay of about 8 years from 1977. It was sufficient time to sanitise the evidence suitably. The rest of the paragraph is the usual verbiage of persons in an uncomfortable position. The “some delay” mentioned by the AA is offensive to the sensibilities of fine judicial minds.

 

While it is essential that the guilty do not escape it is even more necessary to see that persons suspected and charge-sheeted are not indefinitely harassed. There must be a fair and impartial enquiry and while every reasonable latitude must be given to those concerned with the framing of the charges and the subsequent enquiry, limits must be placed on the lengths to which they may go. Speedy enquiry is of the essence of justice. There can be no doubt that undue delay in framing the charges and conducting the enquiry by itself constitutes denial of justice.

 

At page 9, para 7, the AA holds that “normally when such an officer is found wanting in this regard he does not deserve to be continued in the service of the Bank” and found “no reason for me to interfere with the final order dated 7th January 1993 of CA”. I appealed to be retired from 07.01.1993, less than 7 weeks from my normal date of superannuation i.e. 28.02.1993. The intention to deny me pension was malicious, illegal and unconstitutional. Denial of the right to pension is denial of a fundamental right. The Pension Regulations require that appeal to the Governor relating to withholding of pension be disposed, in consultation with the Central Board and pass such orders on the appeal as he deems fit. (Chapter III, Para 5 and 7). Executive excess has been used to deny me even this opportunity.

 

I appealed to the NHRC through Sri Kuldip Nayar renowned senior journalist. The NHRC replied that my plea was not entertainable by them. It was a service matter.

 

 Pension is not a bounty payable at the sweet will and pleasure of the officers in higher ranks. Pension is a valuable right and to receive it is a well settled legal proposition.

 

I therefore appeal to the media to help me get justice and pension.