Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to ensuring compliance with natural justice; if some evidence supports findings, the court cannot interfere, and effective alternative remedies under industrial laws must be pursued.

JUDGMENT :

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.

1. Petitioner is a retired employee of the Respondent No.1/BPCL Kochi Refinery who retired during the pendency of this Writ Petition on 31.05.2020. This Writ Petition was filed while the Petitioner was in service, challenging Ext.P37 Order of the Respondent No.3/Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of demotion and Ext.P33 Enquiry Report of the Enquiry Officer.

2. As per Ext.P13 Charge Sheet, the Charges levelled against the Petitioner were as follows:

“1. While working as 'Planning Assistant' in the Development Cell during the period from 03.11.2008 to 10.11.2011, you were unnecessarily putting hardship for Sri. C P Saidhu and Sri. K K Anilkumar, contractors who took the contract jobs of "Cement Lining of Fire Water Piping" during 2010-11 and "Fire water line Maintenance" during March 2011 to August 2011 respectively, by delaying the verification of the measurements of jobs carried out by them inspite of repeated requests from the contractors.

2. On completion of the jobs, you were intentionally finding fault with the contractors and unnecessarily insisted on redoing the works performed by them without any valid reasons, which resulted in delay in completion of jobs and increasing the costs of the contractor. The above actions on your part were with the ulterior motive of getting undue favour from the contractor.

3. You had accepted Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) as bribe from Sri. C P Saidhu, contractor in two instalments of Rs. 10,000/- each during the period 2010-11 and thereafter you did not make any delay in verification of the measurements of these jobs. After some time, you again started harassing the above contractor.

4. You were also harassing Sri. K K Anilkumar with the malafide intention of extracting undue benefits from him.”

3. As per Ext.P13, the said Charges amount to misconduct under Clause 29.3 of the Certified Standing Orders of BPCL- Kochi Refinery that ‘acceptance or solicitation by employee of any money, favour or any other reward for retention in the company’s service, or for any other special consideration’.

4. In the Ext.P33 Enquiry Report, the Enquiry Officer found that the Management has established all the allegations against the Petitioner in Ext.P13 Charge Sheet and found the Petitioner guilty of misconduct under Clause 29.3 of the Standing Orders of BPCL- Kochi Refinery.

5. In Ext.P37 Order, the Petitioner was imposed with a punishment of demotion from the post of Senior Fitter Craftsman (Gr-VII) to the post of General Craftsman (Fitter) at the lowest stage in Grade VI in the scale of pay of Rs.15,000 – Rs.43,000.

6. The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed Counter Affidavit opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition.

7. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. C.S. Ajith Prakash, and the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents, Sri. Benny P. Thomas, instructed by Advocate Sri. D.Prem Kamath.

8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner by way of victimisation on account of the sole reason for challenging the transfer of the Petitioner from the post of Planning Assistant to Senior Fitter Craftsman in this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.30508/2011, which culmina