The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for similarity in charges and proportionality in punishment, as well as the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in cases of disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. These writ appeals filed u/S. 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 are directed against the common order dated 7th December, 2017 passed in WP No. 5474/2009 (Kailash Chandra Meena Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd and another) and in WP No. 2981/2010 (Mangilal Rathore Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd and another) decided on 7th December, 2017.

2. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions and set aside the punishment orders of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority. The matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority to pass any other punishment order except dismissal, removal, termination or compulsory retirement. The respondents were directed to be reinstated forthwith in service with further direction to pay arrears of salary, increments and other consequential benefits.

3. The appellants/employer is aggrieved by this order and assailed it in these Writ Appeals.

Petitioner's Submissions:

4. Shri Cama, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Shri Chitle and Shri Kochatta, learned counsel submits that the respondent employees were holding post in ministerial cadre. By issuing separate charge sheets, the respondent employees and three more officers namely Subhas C. Das, Prateek Katware and Alok Shrivastava were subjected to disciplinary proceedings. By taking this Court to the charge sheets served to said three persons namely Subhas C. Das, Prateek Katware and Alok Shrivastava, learned Sr. counsel submits that nature of allegations mentioned in their charge sheet are different than the charges levelled against the present respondents. Putting it differently, it was argued that the allegations against present respondents were that they, in utter violation of 'standard procedure', accepted cheques from co-operative banks. The respondents manually altered the dates of Bank Deposit Slips (BDS) to later dates and deposited with bank on/after such altered/revised BDS dates and bring the ERP period for many such exclusive BDS, reprints were taken at later dates and such reprinted BDS were deposited with banks subsequently. This has resulted into financial loss to Corporation in terms of non and delayed receipt of money against supplies made to certain dealers.

5. The charges levelled against present respondents were read out in juxtaposition to the charges levelled against aforesaid three officers. It was strenuously contended that allegations against the said officers were relating to lack of supervision/control. The charges against those officers were that they failed to ensure that the cheques issued by cooperative banks are not accepted. The nature of duties of present respondents and that of officers were different. The main role is played by present respondents. The officers merely failed to properly supervise or control the said activity and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that charges against the present respondents were similar qua the charges levelled against said three officers.

6. The order of learned Single Judge dated 7th December, 2017 was assailed by contending that:-

(i) The learned Single Judge has merely reproduced the punishment orders of such officers and formed an opinion that the charges levelled against the respondents as well as said three officers were almost similar in nature. In absence of comparison of charges, such a finding based on punishment orders could not have been given.

(ii) A minute scrutiny of charges levelled against the respondents shows that the nature of charges are distinct and different and, therefore, question of imposing same punishment does not arise. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & another Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72, Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Vs. Gulabhia M. Lad, (2010)