Delhi High Court Junks RBI Officer's Plea Against Disciplinary Proceedings For Assisting Rajya Sabha MP In Drafting Private Bill

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a senior officer of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) against whom proceedings were initiated by the regulatory body last year for allegedly assisting Rajya Sabha MP Rakesh Sinha in drafting a private member bill for establishment of Public Credit Registry.

Justice Rekha Palli said the plea has no merit as it is an admitted position that the departmental inquiry against him was initiated "only recently" and on September 29, the inquiry officer has directed the Presenting Officer to tender evidence in support of the charges levelled against the officer.

"It is therefore clear that the petitioner has come to this Court at a premature stage when the inquiry has just commenced. It is trite law that the Court should generally not interdict the departmental proceedings initiated against an employee unless a case of gross perversity or high handedness is made out," said Justice Palli.

The court also noted that it is the petitioner's own case that he had assisted the MP in drafting the private Bill on the aspect on which his employer itself was drafting a bill. "The less said, the better at this stage," said Justice Palli, while referring to the admission.

Justice Palli further said the explanation that most of the information shared by him with the MP was already in public domain is an aspect which the Inquiry Officer is expected to consider in detail.

"In my considered view, it would not be appropriate for this Court to examine this aspect at this premature stage lest prejudice is caused to the petitioner in the inquiry proceedings. I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned chargesheet or the departmental proceedings at this stage," said the bench.

However, the court made it clear that the dismissal of the plea would not preclude the petitioner from raising the grounds raised in the petition either before the inquiry officer or before a competent Court after a final order is passed in the departmental proceedings.

Saket Kumar Sharma, who is a Director in the RBI, in the petition had challenged the memorandum of charges dated August 2, 2021 and the 'revised charge sheet' dated July 25. In essence, the petition was against the disciplinary proceedings.

The Public Credit Registry Division of RBI in 2019 was contemplating to table a bill on the public credit registry. Indrajit Roy, the Director General of the division, had shared some information with Sharma regarding the same. Sharma is accused of having further indulged in discussions with the Rajya Sabha MP "regarding the recommendations of the High Level Task Force on Public Credit Registry for India." It is alleged that based on those discussions, the MP in 2019 introduced a private member bill in the parliament on the subject.

In 2020, the RBI noticed similarities between the private member bill and the one drafted by the RBI and issued show cause notices to Sharma and Roy asking them to explain whether confidential information had been supplied by either of them to the MP.

Roy responded that he had only shared some information with Sharma. In his separate response, Sharma admitted that he had made certain discussions with the MP on the basis of information already available in the public domain. He denied having divulged any confidential information.

Finding the reply unsatisfactory, the RBI issued him a memorandum of charges on the ground of having committed misconduct and indiscipline by violating the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. In reply, he again denied the charges. Subsequently, a revised charge sheet was issued to him.

The RBI before court argued that in the light of the petitioner's admission that he had helped the MP in drafting a private bill to be presented in the Parliament on the same subject on which a bill was being prepared by the bank, in itself shows that the actions of the petitioner were detrimental to the interests of the bank.

The court was also told that Roy had shared the information with the petitioner only to help him to brief the government's representatives on the subject. "The petitioner had not only shared the information with a rank outsider, but had also helped him prepare a private bill to be presented in the Parliament and that too on a subject on which the respondent bank was preparing a bill," RBI's counsel told the court.

Title: SAKET KUMAR SHARMA versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1008