Point of Law : Unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court, there is no scope for interference.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for all the respondents.

2. The petitioner who was working as a Deputy Manager (Training & Development) in the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) has challenged the penalties of removal from service inflicted upon him, in pursuance to two disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The joint appeal filed by the petitioner against the two penalties of removal from service imposed upon him, have been rejected. The Review petition filed by the petitioner not having been decided by the respondents, the writ petition has been filed.

3. Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the first charge-sheet dated 17.06.2011 issued to the petitioner, was to the effect that the petitioner had collected money from various persons in the IOC for investment in a non-banking financial company (Unipay VISAREV) with assured returns, by acting as a local agent for the non-banking financial company. The second charge in the charge-sheet dated 17.06.2011 was that the petitioner was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income.

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that with respect to the charge of the petitioner owning assets disproportionate to the known source of income, the CBI had registered Special Case No.R.C.9(A)11-GWH. However, the CBI thereafter submitted a Final Report dated 10.06.2011, wherein it recommended closure of the case, as it came to a finding that “it may not be right to hold that the assets found in the possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known source of income”. The CBI Final Report dated 10.06.2011 was accepted by the Special Judge, CBI, Assam, vide it’s order dated 31.07.2012. He further submits that there are witnesses who have stated that there was no pressure to make any investment by the petitioner, in the non-banking financial institution and as the petitioner did not engage in any trade or business, the petitioner could not have been given the penalty of removal from service.

5. With regard to the second charge-sheet dated 24.02.2012, by which the petitioner has been charged with abusing his official position, by creating 25 vendor codes online in SAP at his own discretion, without supporting documents and approval of the competent authority for personal gain and on the charge of manipulating the PAN number of Shri Rajib Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no abuse of the petitioner’s official position while creating the 25 vendor codes online, as the same had been done by him on the request of other officials, who did not know now to create vendor codes by themselves.

6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the Disciplinary Authority has awarded the same penalty of removal in respect of the second Disciplinary Proceedings, as has been given in respect of the first Disciplinary Proceeding without application of mind. He submits that in terms of Rule 29 of the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1980, hereinafter referred to “1980 Rules”, applicable to the officers of the IOC, one or more of the penalties provided in the said Rule 29 can be imposed on an employee for misconduct committed by him, and different penalties may be imposed for different acts, omission or misconduct, whether covered by one or different charge-sheets. He submits that as the acts of misconduct provided in the two charge-sheets are different, different penalties should have been imposed upon the petitioner. He also submits that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the offences, keeping in view that there was no financial loss caused to the IOC. He also submits that as the disciplinary proceedings did not find the petitioner guilty of having disproportionate assets and as no bribe had been taken by the petitioner, the penalty of removal imposed upon the petitioner should be modified. Accordingly, the pe