Delhi HC refuses to interfere in disciplinary inquiry initiated against a RBI Director for assisting MP in drafting private bill

Justice Rekha Palli of the Delhi High Court recently refused to interfere in the disciplinary inquiry initiated against a Reserve Bank of India Director for assisting Member of Parliament (MP) Rakesh Sinha in drafting a private bill for establishing Public Credit Registry.

Noting that the petitioner had come at a “pre-mature stage” when the inquiry had just commenced, the single-judge bench dismissed the plea filed by the RBI Director, and stated that it is a common law that the courts should not generally intervene in departmental proceedings initiated against an employee unless there is evidence of ‘gross perversity’ or ‘high handedness’.

In 2019, the Public Credit Registry Division of the RBI contemplated a bill on the public credit registry, and the Director General (DG) Indrajit Roy shared some information with the petitioner, who then discussed the recommendations of the High-Level Task Force on Public Credit Registry for India with Rakesh Sinha (MP). It is alleged that based on the discussions, Sinha introduced a private member Bill in the Parliament for the establishment of the Public Credit Registry.

Thereafter, in October 2020, the RBI noticed similarities between the private member bill introduced by Sinha and the one drafted by RBI on the public credit registry and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and Indrajit Roy (DG). In August 2021, a memorandum was issued to the petitioner on the grounds of misconduct and indiscipline by violating the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, and a charge sheet was filed against him.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that he had only shared information that was already in the public domain with Sinha, so no charges could be made against him. He further argued that just because he had discussed with Sinha and assisted him in drafting the private bill to be tabled in the Parliament would not amount to disclosure of confidential information relating to the operation of the bank, in respect of which he was expected to maintain secrecy.

He further argued that the initiation of departmental inquiry against him was a clear case of discrimination. It was also argued that the petitioner was facing departmental inquiry; however, no such action had been taken against a similarly placed officer, Indrajit Roy, who unauthorizedly shared information with him and was let off with a simple caution.

On the contrary, the RBI opposing the petition contended that the petitioner’s admission that he assisted Sinha (MP) in drafting a private bill to be presented in Parliament on the same subject on which the bank was preparing a bill showed his actions were detrimental to the bank's interests.

Taking note of the submissions, the court stated that the “less said, the better at the present stage”.

Court added that in the case at hand, the petitioner owned that he assisted MP Rakesh Sinha in drafting a private bill and his explanation that most of the information he shared with the MP was already in the public domain was also something the Inquiry Officer was expected to look into in depth.

“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 charge sheet or the departmental proceedings at this stage,” the court ordered.

However, the court made it clear that the dismissal of the current petition did not preclude the petitioner from raising the grounds raised in the petition before the inquiry officer or a competent Court after a final order in the departmental proceedings are issued.

Case Title: Saket Kumar Sharma v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors.