Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND SYAMAL KANTI CHAKRABARTI, JJ.
Sri Swapan Haldar
Vs
Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.
F. M. A. No. 486 of 2010
Decided On : 22.09.2011
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - C.D.A. RULES - FAILURE TO REPORT FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS - MINOR PENALTY - JUDICIAL REVIEW:
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, an Electrical Engineer with Indian Oil Corporation Limited, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for failing to report financial transactions concerning movable property owned by him or his family in violation of relevant service rules. The charges against him included failing to provide information about a plot of land gifted to him and his brothers, taking a loan for construction of a house on the plot, giving power of attorney to his father to construct the house, applying for a loan from LIC for construction of the house, and taking an advance from Cummins Diesels Sales and Service (I) Ltd. for construction of the house.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Disciplinary Authority found Articles 2 to 8 of the charges proved and imposed a minor penalty of censure on the appellant. 2. The Appellate Authority affirmed the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. 3. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed.
Issues: 1. Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the employer was valid and not influenced by the C.B.I.'s report. 2. Whether the appellant was denied natural justice due to non-supply of documents and the presence of the Presenting Officer who was an officer of the C.B.I. 3. Whether the minor penalty of censure was appropriate in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the employer was not invalid merely because it was based on the recommendation of the C.B.I. The employer had the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings on its own and was not bound by the C.B.I.'s report. 2. The appellant was not denied natural justice due to non-supply of documents. He was provided with sufficient materials to answer the charges against him. The fact that he did not challenge the employer's inaction in not supplying all the requested documents indicated that he was not prejudiced by the non-supply. 3. The presence of the Presenting Officer, who was an officer of the C.B.I., did not violate the principles of natural justice. There was no evidence that the Presenting Officer was biased or that the appellant was prejudiced by his presence. 4. The minor penalty of censure was appropriate in the circumstances. The appellant had committed misconduct by failing to maintain devotion to duty and by committing acts unbecoming of a public servant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, holding that there was no scope for judicial review of the minor penalty imposed on the appellant.
SYAMAL KANTI CHAKRABARTI, J.
This appeal is directed against order dated 11th November, 2005 passed in writ petition No. 3683 (w) of 2002 by a Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court.
2. This said writ petition was filed challenging the legality and propriety of minor penalty of censure imposed on the appellant by the Disciplinary Authority on account of his failure to report two transactions concerning movable property owned or held by him in his own name or in the name of a member of his family in violation of relevant service rule 3 of C.D.A. Rules.
3. The background of the disciplinary proceedings drawn up against the appellant is that there was a search on 20-02-86 at the residence of the appellant on a Quarter No.12/38D, 10C Township, Post:- Haldia Township. It was alleged amongst other that while working as Electrical Engineer during 1982-86, the appellant failed to give intimation to the management regarding the financial transaction as required under Rule 22 (23) of the Conduct Discipline and appeal Rules 1980 of the Corporation in respect of the following incidents as enumerated in the charge-sheet Annexure – P/3 dated 01-02-1988. The same are quoted below:-
“INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
(Refineries & Pipelines Division)
Haldia Refinery
No. P/IRDE/7245
Dated: 01-02-1988
Sri Swapan Haldar Sr.
Electrical Engineer Emp. No. 71458
P & U Department
CHARGE SHEET
It is alleged that you , while working as Electrical Engineer during 1982 – 86, failed to give intimation to the Management regarding financial transactions, as required under Rule 22(3) of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 of the Corporation, in respect of the following instances:
1) A plot of land at S- 164 Greater Kailash, New Delhi, of the value of Rs. 8,000/- was gifted to you and your brothers by your great grandfather.
2) You took a loan of Rs.5, 000/- from Shri. A. C. Jana, under secretary in the National Institute of Public Co-operation and Child Development, New Delhi for construction of a house thereon.
3) You gave a Power of Attorney for construction of your father to deal and act on your behalf for construction of the house on the said plot NO. S-164, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. You also authorised your father to construct the house on the said plot and operate the account on your behalf on which more than Rs. 8 lakhs were spent.
4) You alogn your brother, applied for a loan of Rs. 2.5 lakhs from the LIC and a sum of Rs. 1.90 lakhs was paid by the LIC as follows:
Rs. 1 lakh on 28.03.85 by cheque no. 171385
Rs. 50,000/- on 4.7.85 by cheque No. 171730
Rs. 25,000/- on 30.4.85 by cheque no. 171490
Rs. 15,000/- on 30.6.85
This amount was used for the construction of the house.
5) The construction of the hosue was started in 1982 and completed in 1986. An advance of Rs. 1.44 lakhs was taken from M/s. Cummins Diesels Sales and Service (I) Ltd. from 1985 to 1986 vide various receipts signed by your father on your behalf and by your brother.
6) Repayment of loan of Rs. 36,252.70 to the LIC was made by you and your brothers as follows:
i) Receipt No. 28223 dated 29.06.85
ii) Receipt No. 28355 dated 8.7.85
iii) Receipt No. 188 dated 28.12.85
7) A sum of Rs. 1.44 lakhs was paid to Sri. Shanker Lal, Contractor in 1985 by your brother for the construction of house on S-164, G-Kailash is as under:-
1) Vide receipt dated 15.5.83 Rs. 73,000/-
2) Vide receipt dated 23.9.83 Rs. 48,000/-
3) Vide receipt dated nil Rs. 23,000/-
But you intimated the management that it was still a plot.
8) The house was under construction in 1983-84 and 1984-85 also. Lakhs of rupees were spent on its construction. You did not intimate the management about this as required under the rules.
In view of the above, you have committed misconduct by failing to maintain devotion to duty and committed acts unbecoming of a public servant, and thereby contravened rule 22(3) of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 of the Corporation. A copy of the list of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
