Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul and Shailendra Shukla,JJ.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Another
v. Kailash Chandra
Writ Appeals 240 of 2018 and 247 of 2018(Indore); against the common order dated 7.12.2017 passed in Writ Petitions No. 5474/2009 and 2981/2010; Decided on16.3.2021
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- Ss.2(j) and 2(s) -- maintainability of writ petition -- availability of alternative remedy -- respondent/employees "workmen" and appellant Corporation "industry" within meaning of ID Act -- no disputed questions of fact- no quarrel regarding genuineness of record of departmental enquiry produced before Court -- appellant Corporation amenable to writ jurisdiction -- on basis of admitted documents, certain legal questions cropped up which were decided -- writ petitions filed by respondents in 2009 and 2010 -- not inclined to interfere with order and relegate respondents to avail remedy under ID Act. 2021 (1) JLJ 502 (DB) relied on. (2004) 4 SCC 268 referred to. [Paras 13 & 14]
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- scope of judicial review -- departmental enquiry -- punishment -- judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is related to legality of decision making process, not to decision -- if enquiry suffers from serious procedural impropriety, findings of enquiry officers are perverse, interference can be made -- writ Court not obliged to sit as appellate Court to reweigh or re-appreciate evidence -- if punishment is shockingly dis-proportionate, interference can be made. (1995)6 SCC 749, (1999)1 SCC 759, (2007)7 SCC 236, (2009) 8 SCC 310, (2020)3 SCC 423 and (2020) 9 SCC 471 referred to. [Para 15]
(3) Order -- "perversity" -- is a conclusion which mus tbe founded upon specific reasons. [Para 17]
(4) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- departmental enquiry -- no reasons whatsoever assigned by writ Court on basis of which conclusion of "perversity" was drawn -- if enquiry was found to be perverse, punishment order was required to be set aside -- question of remanding matter to disciplinary authority did not arise. [Para 18]
(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- departmental enquiry -- discrimination in punishment -- test for deciding similarity of charges and proportionality of punishment -- imposition of punishment depends upon nature and duties of each delinquent employee, role allegedly played by them, gravity of charges, loss caused, past record etc. -- similarity of allegations established in enquiry -- punishment should be similar and commensurate to misconduct -- charges established against delinquent employees similar and some of them inflicted with severe punishment of dismissal from service where as others put to comparatively advantageous position -- fit case for interference by Court in exercise of power under Art. 226. Administrator (2010) 5 SCC 775, (1997)3 SCC72 and (2013) 12 SCC 372 followed. (1992) 4 SCC 54 referred to. [Paras 20 & 23]
(6) Departmental Enquiry -- discrimination in punishment -- charges levelled and proved against respondent/ministerial employee sand officers arising out of same transactions and almost similar in nature -- officer must shoulder higher responsibility qua subordinate ministerial employee -- officer held to be"transaction originator" dealt with leniently -- respondents inflicted with severe punishment of dismissal from service -- shocks conscience of Court -- no error in holding that respondents were subjected to discriminatory treatment in matter of imposition of punishment and punishment of dismissal imposed on them was shockingly disproportionate. (1995) 6 SCC 749, (1999) 1 SCC 759, (2002) 5 SCC 11, (2003) 9 SCC 228, (2004) 8 SCC 218, (2005) 7 SCC 338, (2008)7 SCC 580, (2013) 10 SCC 106, (2015) 2 SCC 610, (2017) 2 SCC 528 and (2020) 9 SCC 471 followed. (2007) 7 SCC 206 and (2013) 3 SCC 73 referred to. [Para 34]
(7) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- scope -- punishment of dismissal set aside -- matter remanded to disciplinary authority to impose any other punishment -- whether Single Judge justified in directing reinstatement with back wages -- held -- only course open was to observe that substituted penalty imposed by disciplinary authority shall take place of punishment of dismissal from due date and all benefits arising out of said substituted punishment will ensue -- went wrong indirecting reinstatement with salary, increments and other benefits -- order of writ Court set aside to this extent -- substituted punishment imposed by disciplinary authority shall govern financial and other benefits to respondents/employees from due date.(2015) 2 SCC 610 followed. (1980) 3 SCC 459 distinguished. (1980) 3 SCC 457 referred to. [Paras 35 & 38]
(8) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M. P.) -- S. 2 (1) -- writ appeals filed by employer -- respondents/employees did not assail writ order -- cannot point out flaws inorder of writ Court. [Para 37]
¼1½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & v©|fxd fookn vfèkfu;e] 1947 & èkkjk 2 ¼¥½ rFkk 2¼Ä½ & fjV ;kfpdk dk pykus ;¨X; g¨uk & vkuqdfYid mipkj dh miyCèkrk & çR;FkÊ@deZpkjhx.k v©|¨fxd fookn vfèkfu;e d¢ vFkkZarxZr ^^deZdkj^^ v©j vihykFkÊ fuxe ^^m|¨x^^ & rF; d¢ fookfnr ç'u ugha & U;k;ky; d¢ le{k is'k fd, x, foÒkxh; tk¡p d¢ vfÒys[k dh çkekf.kdrk d¢ ckjs esa d¨Ã vucu ugha & vihykFkÊ fuxe fjV vfèkdkfjrk d¢ vè;èkhu & LohÑr nLrkost¨a d¢ vkèkkj ij dfri; fofèkd ç'u mBs] ftUgsa fofuf'pr fd;k x;k & çR;FkÊx.k }kjk fjV ;kfpdk,a 2009 v©j 2010 esa Qkby dh xà & vkns'k esa gLr{ksi djus rFkk çR;FkÊx.k d¨ v©|¨fxd fookn vfèkfu;e d¢ vèkhu mipkj dk ykÒ ysus d¢ fy, okil Òstus d¢ bPNqd ughaA 2021 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 502 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼2004½ 4 ,l lh lh 268 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 13 ,oa 14½
¼2½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & U;kf;d iqufoZy¨du dh O;kfIr & foÒkxh; tk¡p & naM & vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh dk U;kf;d iqufoZy¨du fofu'p;u dh çfØ;k dh oS|rk ls lacafèkr g¨rk gS] fou'p; ls ugha & ;fn tk¡p xaÒhj çfØ;kRed vu©fpR; ls xzLr gS] tk¡p vfèkdkfj;¨a d¢ fu"d"kZ foi;ZLr gSa] r¨ gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gS & fjV U;k;ky; vihy U;k;ky; d¢ :i esa lk{; dk iquewZY;kadu djus ;k ml ij iqufoZpkj djus d¨ ckè; ugha & naM p©adkus dh lhek rd vuuqikfrd g¨ r¨ gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼1995½ 6 ,l lh lh 749] ¼1999½ 1 ,l lh lh 759] ¼2007½ 7 ,l lh lh 236] ¼2009½ 8 ,l lh lh 310] ¼2020½ 3 ,l lh lh 423 rFkk ¼2020½ 9 ,l lh lh 471 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 15½
¼3½ vkns'k & ^^foi;ZLrrk^^ & ,slk fu"d"kZ gS t¨ fofufnZ"V dkj.k¨a ij vkèkkfjr g¨uk vko';d gSA ¼iSjk 17½
¼4½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & foÒkxh; tk¡p & fjV U;k;ky; }kjk d¨Ã Òh dkj.k ugha fn;k x;k ftld¢ vkèkkj ij ^^foi;ZLrrk^^ dk fu"d"kZ fudkyk x;k & tk¡p foi;ZLr ikà xà Fkh r¨ naM dk vkns'k vikLr fd;k tkuk vko';d Fkk & vuq'kklu çkfèkdkjh d¨ ekeyk çfrçsf"kr djus dk ç'u gh ugha mBrkA ¼iSjk 18½
¼5½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & foÒkxh; tk¡p & naM esa foÒsn & vkj¨i¨a dh le:irk v©j naM dk vuqikr fofuf'pr djus d¢ fy, dl©Vh & naM dk vfèkj¨i.k çR;sd vipkjh deZpkjh d¢ drZO;¨a dh çÑfr] mud¢ }kjk fuokZg dh xà Òwfedk] vkj¨i¨a dh xaÒhjrk] dkfjr gkfu] foxr o`Ùk vkfn ij fuÒZj djrk gS & vfÒdFku¨a dh le:irk tk¡p esa LFkkfir & naM le:i rFkk vopkj d¢ vuq:i g¨uk pkfg, & vopkjh deZpkfj;¨a d¢ fo#) LFkkfir vkj¨i le:i rFkk muesa ls dqN d¨ lsokP;qfr dk çpaM naM fn;k x;k tcfd vU; d¨ rqyukRed :i ls ykÒçn fLFkfr esa j[kk x;k & U;k;ky; }kjk vuqPNsn 226 d¢ vèkhu 'kfä ç;qDr djrs gq, gLr{ksi d¢ fy, mi;qDr ekeykA ¼2010½ 5 ,l lh lh 775] ¼1997½ 3 ,l lh lh 72 rFkk ¼2013½ 12 ,l lh lh 372 vuqlfjrA ¼1992½ 4 ,l lh lh 54 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 20 ,oa 23½
¼6½ foÒkxh; tk¡p & naM esa foÒsn & çR;FkhZ@vuqlfpoh; deZpkjhx.k rFkk vfèkdkfj;¨a ij yxk, v©j fl) fd, x, vkj¨i mUgÈ laO;ogkj¨a ls mn~Òwr rFkk çÑfr esa yxÒx leku & vèkhuLFk vuqlfpoh; deZpkjh dh rqyuk esa vfèkdkjh d¨ vfèkd mÙkjnk;h g¨uk pkfg, & ^^laO;ogkj ç.ksrk^^ vfÒfuèkkZfjr vfèkdkjh ls uje O;ogkj & çR;FkÊx.k d¨ lsokP;qfr dk çpaM naM & U;k;ky; dh var'psruk d¨ vkÄkr igq¡pk & ;g vfÒfuèkkZfjr djus esa d¨Ã xyrh ugha fd naM d¢ vfèkj¨i.k d¢ fo"k; esa çR;FkÊx.k ls foÒsndkjh O;ogkj fd;k x;k rFkk mu ij vfèkj¨fir lsokP;qfr dk naM p©adkus dh lhek rd vuuqikfrd FkkA ¼1995½ 6 ,l lh lh 749] ¼1999½ 1 ,l lh lh 759] ¼2002½ 5 ,l lh lh 11] ¼2003½ 9 ,l lh lh 228] ¼2004½ 8 ,l lh lh 218] ¼2005½ 7 ,l lh lh 338] ¼2008½ 7 ,l lh lh 580] ¼2013½ 10 ,l lh lh 106] ¼2015½ 2 ,l lh lh 610] ¼2017½ 2 ,l lh lh 528 rFkk ¼2020½ 9 ,l lh lh 471 vuqlfjrA ¼2007½ 7 ,l lh lh 206 rFkk ¼2013½ 3 ,l lh lh 73 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 34½
¼7½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & O;kfIr & lsokP;qfr dk naM vikLr fd;k x;k & vU; d¨Ã naM vfèkj¨fir djus d¢ fy, ekeyk vuq'kklu çkfèkdkjh d¨ çfrçsf"kr & ,dy U;k;kèkh'k }kjk fiNyh etnwjh lfgr iqu%LFkkiu funsf'kr fd;k tkuk U;k;¨fpr ;k ugha & vfÒfuèkkZfjr & ,dek= miyCèk ekxZ ;g leqfDr djus dk Fkk fd vuq'kklu çkfèkdkjh }kjk vfèkj¨fir dh tkus okyh çfrLFkkfir 'kkfLr lsokP;qfr naM dk LFkku fu;r fnukad ls ysxh rFkk mDr çfrLFkkfir naM ls mn~Òwr leLr Qk;ns ifj.kkeLo:i çkIr g¨axs & osru] osruo`f);¨a v©j vU; Qk;n¨a lfgr iqu%LFkkiu funsf'kr djuk xyr Fkk & fjV U;k;ky; dk vkns'k bl lhek rd vikLr & vuq'kklu çkfèkdkjh }kjk vfèkj¨fir çfrLFkkfir naM fu;r fnukad ls çR;FkÊx.k@deZpkjhx.k d¢ foÙkh; v©j vU; Qk;n¨a d¨ fofu;fer djsxkA ¼2015½ 2 ,l lh lh 610 vuqlfjrA ¼1980½ 3 ,l lh lh 459 çÒsfnrA ¼1980½ 3 ,l lh lh 457 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 35 ,oa 38½
¼8½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB d¨ vihy½ vfèkfu;e] 2005 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 2¼1½ & fjV vihysa fu;¨td }kjk Qkby & çR;FkÊx.k@deZpkjhx.k us fjV vkns'k vk{ksfir ugha fd;k & fjV U;k;ky; d¢ vkns'k esa xyfr;k¡ ugha fudky ldrsA ¼iSjk 37½
ORDER
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 v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd and another) and in WP No.2981/2010 (Mangilal Rathore v. 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 v. Ashok Kumar Arora [(1997)3 SCC 72], Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad (2010) 5 SCC
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 c....
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, highlighting the discretionary power of the disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment and the impo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for evidence-based findings and the principles of proportionali....
The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and parity in disciplinary actions, reducing the punishment from dismissal to withholding increments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasons in the decision-making process, adherence to the principles of natural justice, and the limited scope of judicial revie....
Punishment in disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice and be proportionate to the misconduct; excessive punishment may warrant judicial intervention.
Bank officials accused of serious financial misconduct are expected to discharge their duties with utmost integrity and honesty, and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be sub....
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
