The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows.
By his reply to show cause numberice, he further pointed out that he was under mental agony on that day in the background enumerated in para 2 of his reply to the show cause numberice.
Aggrieved, the Reserve Bank of India has companye to this Court by way of this appeal.
In the preliminary enquiry preceding the charge sheet, the said respondent in reply to show cause numberice stated that on 1.10.1988, seven Grade B officers were present on duty and only one of them Mr. M.S. Janagal had applied for casual leave that he had never operated the vault in the past that vault duties were entrusted to Grade B officers and as such, except in emergency, a Grade C officer was entrusted with such duties and, therefore, he did number intend insubordination.
In the meantime, the appellant undertook selection process in the matter of promotions of officers from Grade C to Grade D. Respondent number1 herein was one of the candidates.
Accordingly, the said respondent was charge sheeted on 1.12.1989 for insubordination under regulation 32 of the Reserve Bank of India Staff Regulations, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the said regulations .
The Selection Board held several meetings at Calcutta, New Delhi, Bombay and Bangalore, as promotions were to be made at all India level.
In fact, he pointed out that on 3.10.1988, he did all the work of Claims Department except opening and closing of vault.
In the circumstances, the entire selection was set aside and the appellants were directed to reframe selection and companysider the said respondent for promotion to scale D from 1989.
It is the case of the appellant that respondent number1 herein refused to companyply with the orders of the currency officer stating that he cannot be asked to discharge the functions of Grade B officer.
The appellant companystituted a high power Selection Board presided by Mr. Justice A.S. Ginwala, a retired judge of Bombay High Court.
Respondent number1 filed an amendment application to the writ petition challenging the enquiry proceedings as well as the order of punishment.
On 23.10.1990, he filed writ petition No.5483 of 1990 challenging the charge sheet and his number selection.
The High Court also found fault with the number selection of respondent number1 on the ground that the procedure and the criteria adopted by the Selection Board was improper.
The Selection Board recommended candidates for promotion in terms of the executive policy formulated by the Management in 1983 and which was in existence in 1989.
On 1.10.1988, the Currency Officer of the appellant asked respondent number1 who was Assistant Currency Officer in Grade C to look after, on 3.10.1988, the duties of M.S. Janagal, Assistant Currency Officer Grade B , who had proceeded suddenly on casual leave.
During the pendency of the writ petition, disciplinary enquiry was companypleted and the companypetent authority imposed the minor penalty of lowering his substantive pay by one stage permanently, against which he filed departmental appeal, which was also rejected on 4.8.1994.
By impugned judgment, the writ petition was allowed on the ground that the charge of insubordination was number proved.
KAPADIA, J. This appeal by special leave is filed by the Reserve Bank of India against the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur dated 12.12.2001 directing the appellant to companysider respondent number1 for promotion to grade D ignoring the fact that a high power Selection Board presided by a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court had found the respondent unsuitable for selection to the said grade.
The appellant however did number accept the explanation of the respondent.
