IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
Ram Krishna @ Ram Krishna Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
I.O.C.L. & Ors. - Respondents
Writ - A No. 61055 of 2016
Decided On : 16-08-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 380, 381, 411, 120B - Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 - Rule 26, sub-rule 1(a) – Offence of Theft – Dishonestly receiving Stolen property - Criminal Conspiracy - Held, There are two options available before Court of law either to set aside the order impugned and foreclose right of Discipline Authority to conduct inquiry and award reinstatement to delinquent or to remit matter back to Competent Disciplinary Authority to hold a fresh inquiry from stage where defect occurred while placing delinquent under suspension for purposes of holding of fresh inquiry and payment of consequential benefit be made subject to outcome of fresh inquiry - Court is of opinion that orders impugned be set aside and a direction be issued to Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry and conclude same within time stipulated by Court - Learned counsel for respondent corporation submits that in case matter is remitted back for holding fresh inquiry then it should be from stage when there was defect occurred in inquiry and according to him it should be from the stage of submission of reply by delinquent to charge sheet - Writ petition stands partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Tiwari learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Briefly stated facts shorn of unnecessary details as worded in the writ petition are that pursuant to the selections conducted by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil Bhawan G-9 Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharatna (in short respondent Corporation) under the financial aegis of the Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, the petitioner was selected as a Steno/Typist and was accorded appointment on 15.03.1999. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner was promoted on 30.07.2012 as Sales Officer and was posted at Azamgarh and subsequently on 05.05.2014 he was transferred from Azamgarh to Mathura Terminal “A” as Operation Officer and he assumed the charge on the said date in Bitumen Plant in Mathura.
3. According to the writ petitioner while he was posted as Operation Officer BDFP, Mathura Emp. No. 30090 on “B” shift duty in the plant on 13.02.2015 from 2:00 P.M. To 10:00 P.M., he after completing his duty hours on the said date at 10:00 P.M. along with the Security Supervisor sealed the locks of the gates as per the rules, however, it is alleged that a theft took place of 184 drums containing Bitumen and the matter was reported in the morning on 14.02.2015.
4. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that on 17.02.2015 the writ petitioner along with Amrit Lal Gupta, Operation Officer, Dipanjan Barai, Plant Incharge and Girija Shankar, Deputy General Manager were called at Police Station, Mathura Refinery, Mathura and the writ petitioner was put to third degree torture and signatures of the writ petitioner were taken on a blank sheet against his wishes and he was arrested formally on 18.02.2015 in Case Crime No. 110 of 2015 under Section 380, 381, 411, 120B I.P.C. P.S. Refinery Mathura and thereafter the writ petitioner was languished in jail. Ultimately the Courts came in his rescue and he was released from judicial custody on 04.08.2015. The criminal trial is going on before the Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Case Crime No. 667 of 2015.
5. Alleging, indulging in an act which led to theft of corporation's property from the premises entailing financial loss and tarnishing the image of the corporation, in exercise of the provisions under Rule 26, sub-rule 1(a) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 of the Indian Oil Corporation the writ petitioner was placed under suspension on 18.02.2015 by the third respondent, General Manager, Incharge, U.P.S.O. II, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Indian Oil Bhawan, E-8, Sector 1, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar. As per the records on 07.08.2015 the ED U.P. SO-II Competent and Disciplinary Authority thereafter reviewed the suspension while continuing the suspension which has already been made with effect from 18.02.2015. A charge sheet was issued to the writ petitioner on 31.08.2015 containing as many as two charges relatable to the allegation that while he was posted as Operation Officer from May, 2014 till February, 2015 at BDFP, Mathura on “B” shift duty at the plant on 13.02.2015 as per the standard procedure upon closure of “B” shift, required to close the gates with key under his custody and also seal the gate with unique number plastic seals and paper seal under signature is required to be posted on the key-whole over the locks containing signature of “B” shift officer as well as security supervisor on duty and keys of the locks was supposed to be retained with the outgoing officer and in the morning “A” shift officer is required to check lock paper seal lock and unique number, plastic seal on the gate with record of provision of the same by night shift officer and open the lock with the key available with him but the writ petitioner violated the said standard procedure and handed over the main gate key to Sri Bhagwan Singh Security Sup
Roop Singh Negi Vs. PNB & Another
Ram Chander Vs. Union of India & Others
Divisional Forest Officer Kathgudem & Others Vs. Madhusudhan Rao
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Others
K.L. Sinha Vs. State of Mysore
State of Haryana Vs. Ratan Singh
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including supplying relevant documents, but if no prejudice is established, the proceedings may still be upheld.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including providing access to relevant evidence. Failure to follow these may invalidate the proceedings.
Disciplinary proceedings must follow the principles of natural justice, including the right to evidence, but non-supply of evidence does not invalidate proceedings if the accused received a fair chan....
Disciplinary inquiries against bank employees can rely on preponderance of probabilities for evidence; natural justice was not violated despite procedural challenges.
The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on preponderance of probabilities, and courts will not interfere unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
Point of law: When the disciplinary authority himself inquires into the charges there is no occasion for submission of an inquiry report. The entire evidence oral and documentary - along with submiss....
Disciplinary inquiry under 1999 Rules vitiated without oral hearing opportunity to delinquent, even absent proposed witnesses by either side, as implicit in rules for natural justice compliance.
The main legal point established is the requirement for a fair and impartial domestic enquiry, adherence to established procedure, and the duty of the Disciplinary Authority to provide reasoned findi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.