IMPORTANT POINT
Where order of Disciplinary Authority was non-speaking and did not appear to have considered the representation of employee made against show cause before inflicting punishment of dismissal and reflected non-application of mind, such order could not be sustained.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Order of Dismissal—Non application of mind to the representation made by employee to show cause—Respondent posted as Assistant Manager was charge-sheeted on account of irregular supply of High Speed Diesel to purchasers—Enquiry Officer found respondent guilty of charges—Disciplinary Authority agreeing with findings of Enquiry Officer passed order of dismissal of respondent after considering reply of respondent to the show cause—Appellate authority maintained the order—Writ—High Court found that orders of punishment as well of appellate authority were cryptic and non-speaking and were liable to be set aside on ground of non-application of mind—Court directed reinstatement with consequential benefits however with liberty to appellant to re-initiate enquiry from the stage of consideration by punishing authority—Appeal—Appellate Authority found to have simply adopted the language employed by Disciplinary Authority and order was total non-application of mind—Order passed by Disciplinary authority and by Appellate Authority were liable to be set aside and matter to be considered a fresh by Disciplinary Authority on the material already on record—Direction by High Court for reinstatement with continuity in service was liable to be set aside.
Held : We have also perused the order passed by the General Manager (Operations) which is available at page 51 and the order passed by the Director (Marketing) who is the appellate authority. A close scrutiny of both the orders would only go to show that the Appellate Authority has simply adopted the language employed by the Disciplinary Authority and inflicted the punishment of dismissal on the respondent herein. (Para 9)
A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority would only reveal the total non-application of mind by the Appellate Authority. We, therefore, have no other option except to set-aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority and remit the matter for fresh disposal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the detailed representation made by the respondent and also consider the detailed report of the Enquiry Officer and the records placed before him in its proper perspective and decide the matter afresh on merits. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to consider the entire case only on the basis of records already on record. The respondent is not permitted to place any further material or record before the Disciplinary Authority. The order passed by the High Court is set-aside for the above reason. We also set-aside the direction issued by the High Court ordering re-instatement into service with continuity in service and all consequential benefits. The Disciplinary Authority is also directed to dispose of the matter, within three months from the date of receipt of this order, after affording an opportunity to both the parties.(Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Director (Marketing) and General Manager (Operations), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. are the appellants before us. The respondent is a dismissed employee of the Appellant-Corporation. The respondent joined the appellant - Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “The Corporation”) in the year 1987. He was posted as Assistant Manager (Operation) at Hissar Depot of the Corporation in the year 1995. He was charge-sheeted on account of irregular supply of High Speed Diesel to the purchasers without following the procedure. The incident happened at Hissar Depot and 12 KL of High Speed Diesel was supplied twice from 17.6.1996 to 19.6.1996 against the same challan by the respondent. A charge-sheet was issued to the respondent. Eight charges were framed against the respondent. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report which is available at page 26 to 40 of the paper book. The Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of charge Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8. The other charges have not been proved. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer after taking into all aspects of the case into consideration. The Enquiry Officer proposed to inflict upon the respondent the major penalty of “dismissal” as a measure of disciplinary action against him. All papers relating to this case, in respect of respondent, were placed before General Manager (Operations), CDA for his perusal and orders. The Disciplinary Authority after perusing the records and the replies submitted to the show cause notice together will all papers relating to the disciplinary proceedings and after applying his mind ordered for inflicting upon the respondent the penalty of “dismissal” as a measure of disciplinary action against him. The period of suspension of respondent was, however, treated as suspension only.

2. An appeal was filed against the order of penalty of “dismissal”. The Disciplinary Authority placed all the papers relating to the case before the Director (Marketing), Appellate Authority for his perusal and orders.

3. The Director (Marketing) - Appellate Authority passed the order rejecting the appeal of the respondent.

4. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal, the respondent preferred Civil Writ No. 11144 of 2000 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana alleging that even though a detailed reply and representation was submitted to the show cause notice, the same has not been gone into and without appreciating the stand taken by the respondent, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have mechanically passed an order affirming the penalty of dismissal upon the respondent.

5. Several other grounds had also been taken on merits of the claim by the writ petitioner (respondent herein). The Writ Petition was contested by the Corporation by filing its counter in the affidavit. It was also specifically stated in the counter-affidavit about the punishment awarded to the respondent for theft and fraud etc. and the imposition of punishment of “dismissal” from the service.

6. Before the High Court, a solitary contention was raised on behalf of respondent stating that despite a detailed response preferred by the respondent herein, the Appellate Authority passed the order dated 15.5.2000 without considering any of the issues raised by the respondent herein as petitioner in the writ petition. The learned Judges of the High Court had also perused the records placed before them by the Corporation. It is seen from the impugned order passed by the High Court that the Judges were satisfied that no reasons whatever had been recorded in either not accepting the issues raised by the respondent in response to the show cause notice nor had the claim of the respondent made in the various grounds raised by him in his appeal been considered. The learned Judges of the Division Bench felt that the orders of punishment dated 30.12.1999 as well as the order dated 15.5.2000 by which the respondent’s appeal had bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 525

IMPORTANT POINTWhere order of Disciplinary Authority was non-speaking and did not appear to have considered the representation of employee made against show cause before inflicting punishment of dismissal and reflected non-application of mind, such order could not be sustained.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where order of Disciplinary Authority was non-speaking and did not appear to have considered the representation of employee made against show cause before inflicting punishment of dismissal and reflected non-application of mind, such order could not be sustained.