Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings cannot substitute the authority's findings unless based on no evidence, emphasizing the need for adequate proof in misconduct allegations.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarthy, J.

1. Heard Dr. K.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ankit Katriar, learned counsel for the appellant-Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 15.4.2024 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ application filed by the writ petitioner-respondent and quashed the order dated 30.1.2017 of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of penalty of Rs.50,000/ as also the appellate order dated 27.6.2017.

3. The facts in brief are that while the writ petitioner was working as Deputy Manager (Emp. Relations) in the Eastern Regional Office of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (‘IOC Ltd.’ in short) at Kolkata in the year 2009, the management of the IOC Ltd. decided to hand over golden jubilee gold medallions to retired employees on 30.6.2009. The writ petitioner along with one Abhijit Bag and Sandip Boral constituted the three member team at counter no.2.

4. After about four years, the writ petitioner was served with a chargesheet on 26.11.2013 containing three charges. The first charge was that the writ petitioner while working as Deputy Manager (Emp. Relations) was the only officer in the team at counter no.2 and she could not produce any statement with regard to the number of gold medallions taken out for distribution from the safe deposit vault and the number of gold medallions returned to the vault after completion of distribution from the said counter. Such lapses on part of the writ petitioner gave opportunity for misappropriation of 24 Carat golden jubilee medallions weighing 250 gms worth Rs.4,56,000/ as on 20.5.2010. The second charge was that the writ petitioner who was the only officer in the team at counter no.2 for distribution of the golden jubilee gold medallions, she did not supervise the activities of the other two employees namely Abhijit Bag and Sandip Boral. Such lapses contributed towards the misappropriation of the gold medallions. The third charge was that lapses on the part of the writ petitioner contributed towards the misappropriation of the gold medallions weighing 250 gms worth Rs.4,56,000/ and in this view the writ petitioner had committed the act of misconduct as per clause 7(5) and 7(9) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 of the IOC Ltd..

5. The writ petitioner filed her reply and the inquiry proceeded. In course of the departmental inquiry, on behalf of the IOC Ltd. seven witnesses were examined and twelve exhibits marked. On behalf of the writ petitioner, one witness was examined and seven exhibits marked.

6. On conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer in his report dated 24.12.2015 came to the conclusion that the charge vide Article no.1 was partially proved to the extent that the writ petitioner should have motivated/convinced her team members to prepare a handing over/taking over document pertaining to the gold medallions received from custodian, distributing to eligible retired employees and returned back to the custodian of gold medallions. So far as the charge vide Article no.2 and Article no.3 are concerned, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the same were not proved and not tenable.

7. The writ petitioner was served with a copy of the inquiry report to which she represented. The disciplinary authority came out with the final order dated 31.1.2017 imposing penalty of fine of Rs.50,000/ on the writ petitioner. An appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner which was declined by order dated 20.7.2017 by the appellate authority upholding the fine of Rs.50,000/ imposed by the disciplinary authority. The review preferred by the writ petitioner was also rejected by order dated 21.9.2017.

8. The writ petitioner challenged the order of penalty of Rs.50,000/ imposed by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate order and the order rejecting the review application by filing CWJC no.2607 of 2019 which was allowed by the learned Single Jud