HARIRAM’S CASE

PRESENTED BY : INTERNS

AKHIL VINAYAN &ABEL DAVID

2ND YEAR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES, KOCHI

• As per allegations of RBI management Bangalore in 1977-79 , criminal

nexus of RBI employees stole Rs. 2,20,000 from RBI Bangalore. All thebanks , government treasuries in Karnataka , submit defaced / soiledcurrency notes to RBI Bangalore in exchange for good notes. RBI aftercollecting such defaced currency notes , sorts out fairly good noteswhich can be reissued & burns off the remaining totally defacedcurrency notes. All these process is done in a systematic manner.

• As per allegations of the management , the crime took place in the

period of 1977-79 at RBI Bangalore. A nexus of employees, took awaythe currency bundles meant for destruction & substituted it in theplace of bundles of reissuables.• CBI has charge sheeted 17 employees in connection

with this case ,case Old No. CC34/1989 - New No.  SC 436/1991.• Dated 24th January 1992

• Accused No 1 : N Nagaraj (Staff Officer)• Accused No 2 : B Jayaraj (Mazdoor)• Accused No 3 : S Jayarajan • Accused No 4 : M Puttanna (Mazdoor)• Accused No 5 : Richard Pinto (Coin/Note Examiner)• Accused No 6 : C R Gururajarao (Coin/Note Examiner)• Accused No 7 : K Narayanswamy (Coin/Note Examiner)• Accused No 8 : B Gopalakrishna (Coin/Note Examiner)• Accused No 9 : K S Radhakrishnan (Coin/Note Examiner)• Accused No 10 : T Muthaian (Coin/Note Examiner)

• Accused No 11 : S Ramalingam (Mazdoor)• Accused No 12 : R Kuchelan (Punching Supervisor)• Accused No 13 : V Thankaraj (Mazdoor) (S/O Vadivelu)• Accused No 14 : M Devadas (Seal Keeper) (S/O Masalamani)• Accused No 15 : Ramachandra Rao Sale (Staff Officer)• Accused No 16 : G Hariram (Staff Officer)• Accused No 17 : Smt. Ramalekshmi Naidu (Coin/Note Examiner)

• Case History In the Court of XXI Addl. City Civil Sessions & Special Judge (K Ishwara Bhat)• 24th January 1992• Accused No 16 : G Hariram

FACTS

Cheated the Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore to the tune of 2,20,000.

By means of substituting stolen, punched & defaced Notes of 100 in the place of packets of the good Notes.

Falsely tallying accounts in the bank records.

OFFENCES

Section 120 B : Criminal Conspiracy Section 380 : Theft in dwelling house.Section 381 : Theft by clerk or servant of property in

possession of master.Section 420 : Cheating & Dishonestly inducing delivery of

property.

•There are no specific charges against each accused, the charges made are of general in nature.

DETAILS OF CASE

C.W 1 : K M Mathew who is one of the accused volunteered to disclose the facts of offence and turned APPROVER at this stage of investigation.

The allegation was that, the substitution had taken place in the note-exchange counter and the note-examination section of RBI, Bangalore.

C.W 2 and 3-T, K.T Thomas, the currency officer and R.Rajaram, the treasurer respectively of the bank gave statements about the usual procedure of the bank.

Statement of CW 1 A5 substituted Notes and A7 Assists. The packets substituted has been supplied by A2. A5 when he was a table supervisor substituted 2 packets of

notes and A3 assisted him.

• Statement of CW 8Accuses A2 that he saw A2 removing something from a cover

of his pocket and giving it to CW 1, Later A2 threatens CW 8• Statement of CW 13Accuses A15 that other accused approached A15 and with

his connivance exchanged packets of cancelled notes at the counter.

• Statement of CW 15 A3 and Mazdoor Narayanasway started bringing punched

note packets from CNV(Cancelled Note Vault) to the counter of A16 & says that they have cheated A16.

Alleges that A2 and others brought the cancelled notes with the connivance of A1

But again CW 15 have not seen presence of A1, A16 & A15.

• Statements of CW 16 to CW 26A3 and A2 have become rich by carrying illegal operations.• Statement of CW 28Explanation as to how he is not responsible for the

discrepancies and irregularities found in the packets when he was the teller at the counter-A6 and A5 had made the packets in his absence at the counter.

• Statement of CW 31She says that a particular seal was issued to A10 and that he made a

packet and different punched packets have come into this packet and there were 2 more extra packets which she failed to notice at the time of tallying. • Statement of CW 1Does not refer to A1,A6,A10,A15 to A17 and to their acts if any in

commission of offence.A1,A15,A16 are not concerned with the work in the examination counter-

they could not have been present in the counter at the substituting the notes.

• Statement of CW 10He says that A1 frequently used to come to A6 and further says that A1 has become

dowry of Rs 1,00,000 for the marriage of his sister.• Statement of CW 15 A3 to A5 started bringing cancelled and punched note packets from CNV with

connivance of A1. Further A2 and Others brought cancelled notes with connivance of A1.However he has not seen the presence of all the acts of A1.Thus the statements of CW 10 and CW 15 are of general nature and is not sufficient to

make a specific accusation against A1,A15 and A16.

• The prosecution case appears to be that the substituted packets of notes were brought from CNV by A1 with the connivance of A15 & A16. But direct evidence of the witnesses is very vague and uncertain without any specific detail as to the date, place and other materials.• So there is no circumstantial evidence on this respect.• Statement of CW 1Substitution of packets took place when A6,A10 and A17 were in the

counters.Circumstantial evidence against A2 to A5, A7 to A9 and A11 to A14 is

strengthened by direct evidence of CW1.

• There is no sufficient material to say that A1,A6,A10 and A15 to A17 were parties to the conspiracy or to say that they have done any acts in furtherance of the acts of substitution and such other acts.• The circumstantial evidence clearly go to show that there was substitution and

theft of notes of packets by way illegal means and that said A2 to A5, A7 to A9 and A11 to A14 were parties to such acts.• CW 1 and prosecution have chosen only some of those who had participated in

the Note examination counters and left out others. • Others like CW29,CW30,CW31 and CW33

• There is sufficient material in the evidence to point out that the accused 2 to 5, 7 to 9 and 11 to 14 are the persons mainly involved in the conspiracy and the commission of the offence.• The case against A13 however is abated on account of his

death.

ORDER

• The case against A13 has abated on account of his death;• There are no grounds to proceed against A1,A6,A10 and A15

to A17 and they are discharged accordingly.• Charges be framed against A2 to A5, A7 to A9, A11,A12 and

A14.• Pronounced in the open court on 24th January 1992.

WRIT PETITION FILED IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA• Petitioner was an employee at RBI, Bangalore from 1953 as coin note

examiner grade II later promoted as staff officer grade A for his meritorious service. • He was wrongly placed under suspension from 24-9-1983 in connection

with an alleged fraud by RBI employees with respect to soiled notes.• RBI employees was thus taken up for investigation by CBI.• Charges against the accused included cheating the RBI between 1977-

1979 to the tune of 2,20,000 Rupees.

• The petitioner was charged for gross negligence and discharge of duties.• Under regulation 47 of RBI, Staff regulations 1948 issued a charge sheet

against 17 employees in 1985.• A domestic enquiry was setup and the enquiry submitted that the

petitioner is guilty and then submitted it to the disciplinary authority.• The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to petitioner

seeking his explanation as to why he should not be punished.

• Aggrieved of the punishment the petitioner approached Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in 1991 seeking to quash such show cause notice.• The court dismissed the petition as the disciplinary authority has not yet

passed an order but only a mere explanation is asked for.• At the end of the criminal proceeding by CBI the petitioner was

discharged through the final order passed by the court on 24/1/1992.• 6 were acquitted out of 17 employees.

• There was no piece of evidence found against the petitioner.• CW15 stated that the petitioner might have got cheated. • The petitioner submitted that it was totally erroneous on the part of

the disciplinary committee to having charged him with the offences while he had no connection at all to the incident of crime in question.• 1992 the petitioner issued a letter to the respondent requesting to

revoke his suspension. The same was rejected.

• On 1993 the disciplinary authority passed a final order dismissing the petitioner and also ordered for recovery of the sum of 14,022. • It is further stated that the petitioner is eligible for the

sanction of compassionate allowance as per Regulation 27 of the Reserve Bank of India pension regulations 1990.

COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCE • (1) An employee of the Bank who is dismissed or terminated from service shall forfeit his pension.Provided that the authority competent to dismiss or terminate from service may, if the case is deserving of special consideration , sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-third of pension which would have been otherwise admissible to him.• (2) A compassionate allowance sanctioned under proviso to sub-regulation (1)shall not be

less than the amount of 1 [Rs.720/-] per mensem in the case of a full-time employee, and proportionate amount thereof in relation to rate of wages applicable in case of a part-time employee.

•  Always while deciding the grant of Compassionate Allowance the legitimacy of delay should be set aside and the special circumstances which led the petitioner to grant for compassionate allowance should be looked into.

• (Mahinder Dutt Sharma V. U.O.I &Ors)

• The petitioner had made numerous requests for compassionate allowance allowable to dismissed employees but the sanction is denied by the RBI. • The petitioner had also submitted numerous RTI applications after the RTI

Act, 2005 came into force.• He submitted applications to know why he was denied his eligible

compassionate allowance if not the pension.• And he also asked the RBI through RTI applications that why he had been

dismissed despite being proved innocent of all the alleged charges.

• RBI using exception clauses and tricky provisions evaded from providing such information to the petitioner.• The petitioner however got some information through RTI and

filed appeals above them.• The petitioner corresponded relentlessly with RBI seeking

justice for him in the matter for allowing Compassionate Allowance.

• The petitioner also filed a pre-litigation case before the District legal services authority.• Requesting the grant of Compassionate Allowance.• The District legal services authority posted the matter before the

pre-litigation Lok Adalath and arranged conciliation on 30th August, 2016 by issuing notice to the parties. • RBI through its Law Officer appeared and objected to the

proceedings stating that since there were many litigations on this matter even before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka early in 1991 itself, the matter can’t be considered as pre-litigation case.

• The RBI also stated that the case needs to be closed without considering the fact that no such litigations of the petitioner is pending before the Hon’ble court.• Being provided with no remedy the petitioner is now before this Hon’ble

Court for compassionate allowance for which he is by all means eligible.• The petitioner has no other alternative and speedy remedy except to

approach the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka under article 226 of the constitution of India.

OBSERVATIONS

• The denial of compassionate allowance to the petitioner by the Respondents without considering the order of Hon’ble Court is illegal and unjust.• The service rendered by the petitioner ought to be considered for the grant of

compassionate allowance. (30 years of service)• When the petitioner was discharged from all the charges alleged on him by CBI

by the competent court of law, RBI should have also discharged him from the charges framed against him under its rules.• The enquiry by RBI even after the discharge of the petitioner by a court is

unjust.

• Case Witness 15 clearly states that the petitioner might have got cheated, it should be considered for the grant of compassionate allowance.• In domestic enquiry none of the witnesses and evidences were

produced which proved the petitioner was working in the respective sections on the dates when the fraud was committed. • The action of disciplinary authority is based on doubts and not on facts. • The petitioner is of very old age and have a poor health condition.• The petitioner does not have any source of income; he is living upon the

mercy of his relatives and friends.

• The respondents had denied the payment of compassionate allowance without hearing the petitioner.• The petitioner has the right to be heard.• Respondents has to hear the petitioner first and then decide upon the

matter of compassionate allowance.Why RBI has left out, so many officers ( who worked in the samesections for more period than accused officers ) from domestic enquiry ?

DELAY

• In this case there is a delay in filing writ petition for the grant of compassionate allowance.• But in the case of (Mahinder Dutt Sharma V. U.O.I & Ors)

April 14, 2014 It is stated that always while deciding the grant of

Compassionate Allowance the legitimacy of delay should be set aside and the special circumstances which led the petitioner to grant for compassionate allowance should be looked into.

CASE LAWS• The delay in filing this writ petition can be pleaded as many employees were not

aware of this regulation 27 of RBI pension regulations. This can be supported by the case of (Md. Abdul Samad vs General Manager, South Central, 2006).

Citation : 2007(3) ALD 722

• In Thankappan Nair v. State of Kerala 2001 (3) 2nd Kerala 464 (W.A. No. 2966/2000) decided on 03.10.2001, the Division Bench of High Court of Kerala thought fit to direct reconsideration of a dismissed officer's request for Compassionate Allowance for which he had applied 28 years  after this dismissal.  The court asked for reconsideration after 28 years of delay.

Citation :

• Similarly, a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in R.S. Sharma v. Union of India and Anr. (2004) III LLJ 191 Bom directed reconsideration of a dismissed officer's request for Compassionate Allowance for which he had applied 11 years after his dismissal. • It is common knowledge that appeals and representations to the higher

authorities take time; time spent in pursuing these remedies may not be excluded under the Limitation Act, but it may ordinarily be taken as a good explanation for the delay. (Tilokchand Motichand& ors v. H.B Munshi & Anr (1970 AIR 898)

• In exceptional circumstances the court may grant relief even at a belated stage provided the court is satisfied that the applicant has not been negligent in pursuing the case. (Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1975)

• Normally a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay. But there is an exception to this-Continuing Wrong. Where a service related claim is based on continuing wrong relief can be granted even if there is long delay in seeking remedy if such continuing wrong create a continuing source of injury.

(Lalman V. General Manager U.O.I, 2011- 14 September)

TO CURTAIL THESE TYPE OF FRAUD• There should be security checkup of officers when

they enter and exit the premises.