7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 6938 OF 2007

Rajinder Paul Bharadwaj, Age 57years,

presently working as Manager (MM)

In the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

At Vasundhara Bhavan, Bandra (E),

Mumbhai 400051, and

residing at B-1302, Hill View Park,

Thakur Village, Kandivali (E),

Mumbai – 400101. ...Petitioner

Versus

1. The Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., “Jivan

Bharti, Tower-II, 124, Connaught Place,

New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Chairman and the Managing Director of Oil &

Natural Gas Coproration Ltd.

“Jivan Bharti”, Tower – II, 124,

Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001.

3. The Director (H.R.), The Oil & Natural

Gas Corporation Ltd., Jivan Bharti, Tower – II,

124, Connaught Place,New Delhi – 110001. ...Respondents

_______

Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy a/w. Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy a/w.

Mr. Aalim N. Pinjari, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Oduvil Mohandas a/w. Mr. J.P.Kapadia i/b. Little & CO.,for

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

_______

CORAM:G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

RESERVED ON:09 March 2026

PRONOUNCED ON: 04 May 2026

Page 1 of 35

Mane

JYOTI

RAJESH

MANE

Digitally signed by

JYOTI RAJESH

MANE

Date: 2026.05.04

18:20:11 +0530

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

JUDGMENT (PER: AARTI SATHE, J) :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the

departmental proceedings resulting in a punishment of reduction in rank imposed

on the petitioner by the Appellate Authority’s order dated 13 April 2006. The

short issue which arises for consideration is whether it was legal and valid for the

respondents to hold a departmental inquiry against the petitioner in the year 2001

in regard to the alleged misconduct of the year 1991, and proceed to impose such

punishment. This apart, also whether the materials on record of the inquiry

proceedings justified such punishment considering the principles of a delayed

inquiry and the rule of fairness in inquiry proceedings, are the other issues. The

prayers as made in the petition are required to be noted which read thus:

a) That this Hon. Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other

appropriate writ or direction, calling for the record and proceedings,

leading to the passing of the impugned orders dated 10th August 2004

(Exhibit I) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 13-4-

2006 (Exhibit L) passed by Appellate Authority. and after examining the

legality -and propriety of the same, this Hon. Court be pleased to quash

and set aside the said two orders.

b) That this Hon. Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other

writ, order or direction to the respondents that in pursuance of the prayer

Clause (a) above, the petitioner be granted all his service benefits including

continuity of service, due promotions, seniority, full back-wages, pay

fixation and all admissible service benefits in the said matter.

c) That pending the hearing and * final disposal of this Writ Petition, this

Hon. Court be pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 10-8-2004

(Exhibit I) and the order dated 13-4-2006 (Exhibit L) passed by the

respondents.

d) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, this Hon.

Court be pleased to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the

higher rank of Chief Manager and above on par with his juniors and pay

him his service benefits on the said post

Page 2 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

2. Briefly the facts are as follows:-

i. The Petitioner at the relevant time was working at the post of Manager

(Materials Management) in the Respondent-Corporation. The Respondent-

Corporation is

inter alia engaged in the production of crude oil and natural gas in

India and is a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU). On 4

th

August 2001, the Petitioner

received a chargesheet memorandum of even date, alleging certain irregularities in

the purchase of certain items in the year 1991, while the Petitioner was working as a

Superintendent Engineer (Mechanical). The aforesaid chargesheet was issued to

the Petitioner after more than 10 years from the date of the alleged irregularity

committed by the Petitioner, and the primary allegation in chargesheet was that

when the Petitioner was posted as a Superintendent Engineer (Mechanical) in the

Tripura project in Agartala, he had allegedly initiated a proposal for purchase of

spare parts of Caterpillar Engine, without there being any real urgency, ignoring the

instructions in the matter of such purchase, and as a consequence thereof he had

proposed purchase of spares in excess than the actual requirement. It is the

Petitioner’s contention that prior to the aforesaid purchase, the Petitioner had

properly put up a proposal for the purchase of the spare parts of Caterpillar Engines

to the Head of the Technical Business Group (TBG) at Agartala on 23

rd

August

1991, and the head of the TBG had endorsed in his own handwriting that the

subject spares were required urgently, and the earlier exercise done to identify the

suppliers could be done again. The aforesaid proposal was also approved by the

General Manager (Project) on 2

nd

September 1991 as a special case, and due to the

urgency the same was expedited, since the spares were required for drilling

Page 3 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

purposes. It is the Petitioner’s contention that the all the requisite permissions and

approvals were in place before the purchase of the aforesaid spares parts of

Caterpillar Engine was made.

ii. The Petitioner by a reply dated 13

th

September 2001 denied all the

allegations made in the chargesheet, and the said reply was titled as the defense

statement of the Petitioner. In the aforesaid defense statement, the Petitioner had

extensively, with reference to the record and documents, pointed out that there was

no irregularity in the said purchase contract as alleged in the chargesheet, and in

fact everything was done as per procedure in the given circumstances with the

necessary approvals of the necessary authorities. The Petitioner therefore submitted

that no misconduct had been committed by him, and he should not be held guilty

of the charges levelled against him. The Petitioner in continuation of the said

defense statement wrote another letter dated 28

th

September 2001, wherein the

Petitioner enclosed copies of 10 documents relating to the said purchase which

would go to prove that the Petitioner was not liable for any of the charges as made

out in the chargesheet. It is the Petitioner’s contention that though the aforesaid

documents were on record, the chargesheet proceedings continued, and the same

proceedings were vitiated on account of the non-consideration of documents

submitted by the Petitioner.

iii.On 14

th

November 2003, the Petitioner filed his defense brief in the

disciplinary inquiry conducted against him. It is the Petitioner’s contention that

there was an inordinate delay in the commencement of the hearing. Further, the

listed documents were not supplied to him by the Presenting Officer. The

Page 4 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

Petitioner also submitted that several defense documents, which he had specifically

requested by his letter dated 9

th

April 2002, were not furnished. Consequently, his

ability to effectively defend himself was seriously hampered, and grave prejudice

was caused to him due to the non-supply of these vital documents.

iv. It is further the Petitioner’s contention that in the course of the inquiry, only

5 out of 8 prosecution witnesses were examined. According to the Petitioner, no

substantive evidence was brought on record by the Respondent-Corporation to

establish that any of the charges levelled against him were proved. The Petitioner

asserts that none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondent-

Corporation supported the allegations, and on the contrary, the evidence on record

indicated that the Petitioner was not guilty of the charges as set out in the

chargesheet.

v. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Petitioner submitted his defence brief

dated 14 November 2003, reiterating,

inter alia, the issue of an inordinate delay of

approximately 10 years in the issuance of the chargesheet, as well as the failure to

supply vital documents necessary for him to effectively present his defence.

vi. On 27

th

November 2003, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the

then Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of the Respondent-Corporation. In

the said report, the Inquiry Officer held that the charges against the Petitioner were

partly proved, primarily on the ground that the spares had been purchased in excess

quantity. The Petitioner contends that this finding is erroneous, as it overlooks the

fact that the original proposal for purchase of spares for four Caterpillar Engines

had been reduced by the competent authority at the relevant time, namely the

Page 5 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

Head of TBG Agartala, to the purchase of spares for only two Caterpillar Engines.

The spares were, in fact, procured to meet emergent requirements and to ensure the

uninterrupted functioning of the Respondent-Corporation.

vii. Post the inquiry report dated 27

th

November 2003, the then CMD of the

Respondent-Corporation issued a memorandum dated 16

th

March 2004 to the

Petitioner, informing him that he disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry

Officer, and called upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why all the charges

should not be held as fully proved against him. The Petitioner submits that the

inquiry report and the memorandum of disagreement dated 16

th

March 2004 were

furnished to him simultaneously. It is the Petitioner’s contention that the said

memorandum of disagreement was issued by the then CMD of the Respondent-

Corporation without due reference to the allegations in the chargesheet, the

evidence on record, or the reasoning of the Inquiry Officer.

viii. In response to the aforesaid memorandum of disagreement, the Petitioner

submitted his reply dated 6

th

April 2004, contending that the disagreement

expressed by the then CMD of the Respondent-Corporation was neither proper,

nor sustainable, and ought to be withdrawn. The Petitioner further pointed out

that certain evidence sought to be relied upon against him had either been removed

or destroyed, and that important file notings pertaining to the earlier proposal

dated 31

st

December 1990 were missing at the time of the inquiry proceedings.

The Petitioner specifically stated that these file notings had been referred to by

Defence Witness No. 5, Mr. P.K. Das, who was the Vigilance Officer at the

relevant time. The Petitioner thus contended that the entire proceedings were

Page 6 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

vitiated by bias, and that relevant documents had been deliberately withheld from

him with the intent to prejudice his defence and to hold him guilty.

ix. Thereafter, upon receipt of the Petitioner’s reply, the Disciplinary Authority

(the then CMD of the Respondent-Corporation) proceeded to pass an order dated

10

th

August 2004 (impugned order), imposing the penalty of compulsory

retirement upon the Petitioner. It is the Petitioner’s contention that the impugned

order is wholly without any valid reasons. The order merely reproduces the

allegations set out in the chargesheet and does not disclose any reasoning

whatsoever for the conclusions arrived at. The Petitioner submits that the

impugned order is a non-speaking order, as it neither records findings as to which

charges have been proved, nor sets out any basis for holding the Petitioner guilty of

any specific lapse, illegality, or misconduct, so as to justify the imposition of the

said penalty.

x. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10

th

August 2004, the Petitioner

preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Board of Directors of

the Respondent-Corporation, by way of an Appeal Memo dated 25

th

September

2004. In the said appeal, the Petitioner challenged the impugned order on the

ground that it was arbitrary and passed in violation of the principles of natural

justice and established procedure. The Petitioner also assailed the findings of both

the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority and prayed that he be

exonerated of all charges and reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

xi. After the filing of the aforesaid appeal, the Appellate Authority, i.e., the

Board of Directors of the Respondent-Corporation, by its order dated 13

th

April

Page 7 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

2006 (Appellate Order), modified the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed

by the Disciplinary Authority. In substitution thereof, the Appellate Authority

imposed the penalty of “reduction to a lower grade/post, with a bar on promotion

to the grade/post from which he has been reduced.” By the said order, the Appellate

Authority further directed that the period from 10

th

August 2004, being the date of

the impugned order of compulsory retirement, till the date of reinstatement of the

Petitioner, shall be treated as “dies non” for all purposes.

3. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that the Petitioner has filed the

present Petition,

inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 10

th

August 2004

passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Order dated 13

th

April

2006. The Petitioner has further prayed for grant of all consequential service

benefits, including continuity of service, restoration of seniority, due promotions,

full back wages, proper pay fixation, and all other admissible benefits. The Writ

Petition was admitted by an order of this Court dated 21

st

November 2007.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy, along with Mr. Saikumar

Ramamurthy and Mr. Aalim N. Pinjari, appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr.

Oduvil Mohandas, along with Mr. J.P. Kapadia, appeared on behalf of Respondent

Nos. 1 to 3.

5. We have perused the papers and proceedings with the assistance of the

learned counsel for the parties and proceed to decide the present Petition.

6. Mr. Ramamurthy, has primarily contended that the entire proceedings

culminating in the finding of guilt against the Petitioner are arbitrary and vitiated,

Page 8 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

as they were initiated and conducted in breach of the established procedure of law.

His submissions may be summarized as follows:

(i) It was submitted that the chargesheet dated 4

th

August 2001, issued in respect of

an alleged incident of September 1991, is

ex facie unsustainable in law on account

of an unexplained delay of nearly 10 years in its issuance, despite the fact that the

alleged incident was within the knowledge of the Respondent-Corporation’s

management. It is submitted that this issue of inordinate delay, although

specifically raised by the Petitioner during the inquiry proceedings, was not

considered or dealt with by the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, or the

Appellate Authority. Such unexplained delay, it was urged, vitiates the entire

inquiry proceedings and the consequential orders, which are therefore liable to be

quashed and set aside on this ground alone.

(ii) It is next submitted that the memorandum of disagreement dated 16

th

March 2004 is wholly unsustainable, as it does not disclose any independent

reasoning or application of mind. According to the Petitioner, the said

memorandum fails to refer to the specific allegations in the chargesheet, the

evidence on record, or the findings and reasoning of the Inquiry Officer. It was

contended that the Petitioner’s reply to the said memorandum, as well as the

defence raised in his defence brief, were not duly considered.

(iii) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the disagreement appears

to have been recorded arbitrarily, and without any rationale, reflecting a

predetermined intent on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to hold the

Petitioner guilty. It was urged that the memorandum of disagreement merely

Page 9 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

reproduces the charges, without furnishing any cogent reasons for disagreeing with

the Inquiry Officer or for proposing to hold all charges as fully proven. This,

according to the Petitioner, demonstrates that the matter was prejudged, thereby

causing serious prejudice to the Petitioner and adversely affecting his career.

(iv) It is further submitted that the representation submitted by the Petitioner in

response to the Inquiry Officer’s report, along with the reasoning set out therein,

was completely ignored by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the penalty

of compulsory retirement by the impugned order dated 10

th

August 2004. It was

contended that neither the Inquiry Officer, nor the Disciplinary Authority, had

duly considered the evidence as specifically pointed out by the Petitioner. On the

contrary, it was alleged that the relevant material was deliberately excluded from

consideration, to the prejudice of the Petitioner, thereby adversely affecting the

fairness of the inquiry proceedings.

(v) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the entire process is

vitiated by mala fides on the part of the Disciplinary Authority. It was urged that

the findings in the Inquiry Report, as well as the basis of the memorandum of

disagreement, rest on mere conjectures and surmises, without any substantive

evidence on record to support the charges.

(vi) It was finally submitted that the Disciplinary Authority, in the impugned

order dated 10

th

August 2004, has not recorded any categorical finding as to

whether the charges against the Petitioner were partly or fully proved. The

impugned order merely narrates the background of the disciplinary proceedings

and reproduces the charges levelled against the Petitioner, without setting out any

Page 10 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

reasons or conclusions justifying the imposition of the penalty of compulsory

retirement. The order, therefore, is a non-speaking order and unsustainable in law.

(vii) Learned counsel for the Petitioner accordingly submitted that the impugned

order dated 10

th

August 2004, as well as the memorandum of disagreement dated

16

th

March 2004, and further the Appellate Order dated 13

th

April 2006 are liable

to be quashed and set aside, and that the Petitioner ought to be reinstated in service

with full consequential benefits. It was also submitted that the Appellate Order has

also been passed without appreciating the facts of the case and does not take into

consideration the evidence placed on record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner

also sought to place reliance on case-laws in support of the above submissions,

which we shall deal with/discuss later.

7.Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Mohandas, appearing on behalf of the

Respondents, submitted that the impugned order dated 10

th

August 2004, the

memorandum of disagreement dated 16

th

March 2004, as well as the Appellate

Order dated 13

th

April 2006, are well-reasoned and have been passed strictly in

accordance with the ONGC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1994

(hereinafter referred to as the CDA Rules).

8. Learned counsel further submitted that insofar as the delay in issuance of

the chargesheet is concerned, the same has been duly explained. It was contended

that it was only on 27

th

February 1997 that the then CMD of the Respondent-

Corporation received a “Secret – Most Immediate” communication from the

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG), enclosing a self-contained note

pertaining to the procurement of spare parts for Caterpillar Engines in the year

Page 11 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

1991, and seeking urgent para-wise comments on the said note.

9. Learned Counsel for the Respondents further submitted that thereafter, by a

letter dated 2

nd

April 1997, the then CMD of the Respondent-Corporation

informed the MoPNG that the matter had been referred to the Vigilance

Department for investigation, and that its report, along with para-wise comments,

was awaited. It is submitted that subsequently, on 20

th

December 2000, the Central

Vigilance Commission, Government of India, issued an Office Memorandum to

the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Respondent-Corporation, recommending

initiation of a suitable inquiry against the Petitioner for the alleged lapses on his

part. Pursuant thereto, the chargesheet came to be issued to the Petitioner in the

year 2001.

10. Learned counsel for the Respondents further submitted that the order

passed by the Appellate Authority dated 13

th

April 2006 is in consonance with

Rules 45, 46, and 51 of the CDA Rules. It was also contended that the penalty of

reduction to a lower grade/post, with a bar on promotion to the higher grade/post

from which the Petitioner was reduced, falls squarely within the ambit of Rule

34(vi) of the CDA Rules, which prescribes major penalties.

11. Learned counsel for the Respondents has placed reliance on the affidavit in

reply dated 20

th

June 2009 filed by Mr. Dayanand Kalundia, Deputy Manager

(HR) of the Respondent-Corporation, in support of the aforesaid contentions. In

the aforesaid affidavit, it was submitted that it was not correct on part of the

Petitioner to cast aspersion on the then CMD of the Respondent-Corporation that

he was in practice of issuing chargesheets on untenable or frivolous grounds to

Page 12 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

honest officers and that the Petitioner was being victimised. It was further

submitted that there was no urgent need to purchase spare parts of caterpillar

engines as suggested by the Petitioner for the Agartala Project. It was also

submitted that the Petitioner did not properly place orders from the authorised

dealer, M/s TIL Calcutta, for the procurement of the spare parts, in spite of specific

instructions in HQRS’s Circular No. MAT/PMC/13(34)/1.90 dated 4

th

January

1990,which specified that Caterpillar Engine spare parts were to be procured from

Overseas Suppliers, i.e., Cater Pillar (Far East) Singapore, for which M/s. TIL Ltd.

was the Authorised Dealer. It was therefore submitted that the purchases from M/s

Diesel Spare Supplies by the Petitioner were not authorised, and further there was

no requirement and use of the spare parts of Caterpillar Engines at the relevant site

in Agartala.

Analysis & Conclusions :

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the

record, at the outset we may observe that the present case is one of a nature, in

which there has been a gross and unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary

proceedings against the Petitioner. The chargesheet came to be issued in the year

2001 in respect of an alleged misconduct of the year 1991. Such inordinate delay in

our view, vitiates the entire proceedings, particularly in the absence of any cogent

or plausible explanation from the Respondents justifying the delay in initiating the

action.

13. Further, the charges as set out in the chargesheet are ambiguous, uncertain

and vague in regard to the alleged misconduct attributable to the Petitioner after

Page 13 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

such long lapse of time, in relation to the procurement of spare parts for Caterpillar

Engines. The fact that the chargesheet pertains to a transaction/order placed as far

back as in the year 1991 reinforces the conclusion that the very foundation of the

inquiry is shaky and/or uncertain. For ease of reference, the contents of the

chargesheet are reproduced below:-

CONFIDENTIAL

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED

TEL BHAVAN: DEHRADUN

No. 8/1/2001-Vig. 1994 Dated: 4.8.2001

MEMORANDUM

.…………..

…………….

…………….

ARTICLE OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SHRI

R.P. BHARDWAJ, CHIEF MANAGER(MM), ONGC, BAROD А

Shri R P Bhardwaj, while posted & functioning as SE(Mech), ONGC,

Tripura Project, Agartala, during the year 1991 committed misconduct in as

much as under:

1.That, Sh. R P Bhardwaj the then SE(Mech) with ulterior motive

manipulated the purchase of a large number of spare parts of Cater Pillar

Engines which was much higher than the real necessity for urgent use and

thus caused pecuniary loss to the company.

2.That, Sh. R P Bhardwaj, the then SE(Mech) knowingly with ulterior

motive showed acute urgency in his proposal to purchase the spare parts

of Cater Pillar Engines in order to procure the same through board

purchase ignoring the normal purchase procedure.

3.That, Sh. R P Bhardwaj, the then SE(Mech) while initiating the proposal

for the purchase of spare parts of Cater Pillar Engines and being one of

the board members has knowingly ignored and violated the

circular/instructions dated 4.1.90 issued by HQRS., by not purchasing the

above mentioned spare parts from authorised dealer though as per the

said circular user of Cater Pillar engines has to purchase spares only from

Page 14 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

authorised dealers mentioned in the circular.

He, therefore, has committed misconduct. He failed to maintain

absolute integrity and devotion to duty. He has acted in a manner which

was not becoming of an employee of the company. He committed

dishonesty in connection with the business or property of the Company.

He has shown negligence with ulterior motive in performance of his duty.

He has willfully ignored and violated the provisions of the normal

purchase procedure and circular/instructions of the Company. His above

acts are prejudicial to the interest of the Company.

He, thereby, has contravened the provisions of rule 4(1)(a, b & c)

read with Sl.No.3,5,30 & 32 of of schedule II of ONGC CDA Rules,

1994.

Disciplinary Authority

Chairman & Managing Director

(emphasis supplied)

14. On a bare perusal of the contents of the charge-sheet, it is our view that the

aforesaid situation is one of ‘

Res ipsa loqutor’ , in as much as the document itself

goes to show that the charges against the Petitioner are vague and unsubstianted.

They are of the nature which do not set out any role of the Petitioner and only

alleged that the Petitioner had an ulterior motive and manipulated the purchases of

a large number of Caterpiller Engines which was much higher than the real

necessity to do so. Therefore, the said charges against the Petitioner could not be

sustained.

15. We also find merit in the next contention made on behalf of the Petitioner

that in response to the chargesheet, the Petitioner had furnished a list of documents

in support of his defence to demonstrate that the charges were baseless. However, it

appears that these documents were neither duly considered, nor appreciated in

their proper perspective by the Inquiry Officer.

Page 15 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

16. A perusal of the inquiry report indicates that the Inquiry Officer himself did

not hold the charges to be fully proved and, in fact, failed to record any clear and

definitive finding as to how even partial culpability could be attributed to the

Petitioner. In respect of charge No. 2, the Inquiry Officer observed that, on

appreciation of the evidence, only a minor part of the charge could be said to be

established. The Inquiry Officer further noted that the role attributed to the

Petitioner in the procurement process was not of such a nature as to singularly

fasten liability upon him, and that other officials were also involved in processing

and approving the transaction. Consequently, the charge, in its entirety, stood

diluted in light of the surrounding circumstances as recorded in the inquiry report.

We cannot re-appreciate the evidence to come to a different conclusion as held by

the Inquiry Officer, therefore the Inquiry Officer’s report which holds that the

charges are partly proved cannot be a case of, whether on such charge it is a case of

‘no evidence’. Even otherwise on the test of ‘preponderance of probabilities’ it

cannot be said that the charges were proved against the Petitioner. Further, for ease

of reference, the relevant charges and the final finding on each of the charges in the

inquiry report are reproduced below:-

ASSESSMENT OF EVIDEN СЕ :

There are three part of the charge against Shri R.P. Bhardwaj:

i. That he manipulated the purchase of large number of spare parts of

Cater Pillar Engines which was much higher than the real need for

immediate use and thereby caused financial loss to the ONGC;

Finding-

Even if margin is given to his argument the spares were urgently

required, it is possible that only some of them might have been used

on their receipt but in the face of two statements which were being

prepared in 1995 as per the evidence of Shri Tarali it cannot be said

that all the spares had been utilized within the time frame given by

Page 16 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

the charged officer. As regards the material at site account statement

for the year 1992-93 & 1993-94 which the charged officer has asked

for but the same were not made available to him though permitted,

their relevance loses weight in the face of the statements of Exh. Р-1.

On the basis of what has been analyzed above, this part of the charge

seems to have some force

ii. That he with ulterior motives and knowingly showed acute urgency

in his proposal to purchase the spare parts of Cater Pillar Engines in

order to procure the same through the Board purchase instead of

following the normal purchase procedure; and

Finding-

In totality, the defence put up by the charged officer can only be taken

as partly correct as it is not wholly corroborated by reliable evidence.

It cannot therefore be held tenable completely. This part of the charge

is therefore correct to a minor extent

iii. That he as one of the members of the Board knowingly ignored and

violated the instructions contained in the circular dated 4.1.1990 of

the Headquarter office by not purchasing the spare parts of the Cater

Pillar Engines from the authorised dealers whereas circular dated

4.1.1990 enjoined that such spare parts should be procured from the

authorised dealer.

Finding-

The third part of the charge against Shri Bhardwaj is that he

knowingly ignored and violated the circular/instructions dated 4.1.90

from Hqr. Office by not purchasing the above mentioned spare parts

from authorised dealer which was obligatory on the part of the users

of cater pillar engines. Thus the part played by Shri Bhardwaj in the

deal as a whole was no doubt not very enviable but others also fell in

line to put through the deal. Therefore the charge, in totally, against

him stands toned down to some extent because of the circumstances

narrated above

17. We are further of the view that the memorandum of disagreement dated 16

th

March 2004 has been issued without due reference to the evidence on record or the

findings recorded in the inquiry report. While disagreeing with the conclusion of

the Inquiry Officer that the charges were not fully proved against the Petitioner, the

Disciplinary Authority has failed to record any independent findings or reasons to

justify holding the charges as fully proved. The disagreement note, in our view,

Page 17 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

appears to have been issued in a mechanical manner, merely to conclude that the

charges stood fully established, without any proper application of mind.

18. Barring reproducing evidences on which the Inquiry Officer had placed

reliance on to come to the conclusion that the charges were not fully proved, the

memorandum of disagreement only appears to have taken another view on the

same evidence. The disagreement memo no where records that the Inquiry Officer

has not taken into consideration the evidence on the basis of which he came to the

conclusion that the charges were partly proved. It was not a case of nonappreciation

of evidence on the part of the Inquiry Officer which the disagreement memo seeks

to disagree with or hold. In fact, the Inquiry Officer has categorically held that the

charges stand partly proved inasmuch as the Petitioner was not the only person

who was involved in the purchase of the aforesaid spare parts of Caterpillar

Engines, but others in the Respondent-Corporation also actively contributed in the

decision-making process. We are therefore of the view that the memorandum of

disagreement has been passed/issued without any independent application of

mind.

19. We are also in agreement with the submission advanced on behalf of the

Petitioner that the impugned order dated 10

th

August 2004, passed by the

Disciplinary Authority, does not disclose any reasons as to why the penalty of

compulsory retirement was imposed upon the Petitioner. The said order does not

record any findings of guilt, nor does it indicate the basis for invoking Rule 34(vii)

of the CDA Rules. There is a complete absence of reasoning to support the

imposition of such a major penalty, rendering the order unsustainable in law. The

Page 18 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

relevant contents of the order of the Disciplinary Authority are reproduced below:-

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.

TEL BHAVAN : DEHRADUN

No. 8/01/2001-Vig Dated:10.08.2004

ORDER

WHEREAS, charge Shiri R.P. Bhardwaj. Chief Manager (MM), ID No-

26190, ONGG Mumbai 36 of ONGC, sheeted CDA vide Memorandum

No. 8/1/2001-Vig dated 04.08.01 under Rule Rules, 1994.

Whereas, Shri R.P. Bhardwaj submitted his written statement of defence

dated 13.09.2001 & 28.09.2001 against the said memorandum dated

04.08.01.

Whereas, Shri Lachhman Singh was appointed as the Inquiry Officer vide

order No. 8/01/2001-Vig dated 03.11.2001 to enquire into the cherges

leveled vide memorandum No. 8/1/2001-Vig doted 04.08.01 under ONGC,

CDA Rules, 1994.

Whereas, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 27.11.2003.

Whereas, the note of disagreement of CDA with the findings of Inquiry

Officer and the report of enquiry was provided to Shri R.P.Bhardwaj vide

memorandum no. 3/01/2001-Vig dated 16.03.04 under Rule 37(3) of

ONGC (CDA) Rules 1994.

Whereas, Shri R.P. Bhardwaj submitted his representation dated 12.04.04 to

the said memorandum dated 16.03.04.

Whereas, the undersigned, being his Disciplinary Authority, has carefully

examined his representation dated 12.04.04 and has also gone through the

records, facts and circumstances of the case and find that Shri R.P.Bhardwaj,

with ulterior motive. manipulated the purchase of large number of spare

ports of Cater Pillar Engines which was much higher than the real necessity

for urgent use thereby causing pecuniary loss to the Company. He, also

knowingly with ulterior motive, showed acute urgency in his proposal to

procure the subject spares through Board Purchase ignoring the normal

purchase procedure. Further, he violated the circular/instructions dated

94.01.90 issued by Head Quarters by not purchasing the spores from

authorized dealer

Thus, the undersigned has come to the conclusion that Shri R.P Bhardwaj is

not a fit person to be retained in the service of the Company.

Now Therefore, the undersigned being the Competent disciplinary Authority

hereby imposes the major penalty of "Compulsory Retirement specified

under Rule 34(vii) of ONGC, Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules 1994,

on Shri R P Bhardwaj, with immediate effect.

CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR

Page 19 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

Shri RP Bhardwaj Chief

Manager (MM),ID No. 26190

ONGC, Maker Towers,

Mumbai

Through

The Chief-Engineering services

(emphasis supplied)

20. Further, the Appellate Order dated 13

th

April 2006, passed by the Appellate

Authority of the Respondent Corporation, whereby the penalty of compulsory

retirement was modified to that of “reduction to a lower grade/post with a bar to

promotion to the grade/post from which the Petitioner was reduced,” also suffers

from the same infirmity. The Appellate Authority has failed to consider the

material on record, including the documents and evidence relied upon by the

Petitioner, and has not recorded any independent findings while modifying the

penalty. The said order, therefore, cannot be sustained. For ease of reference, the

relevant contents of the Appellate Order are reproduced below:-

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.

TEL BHAVAN : DEHRADUN

NO.16(168)/76 - E.I Dated:10.08.2004

ORDER

Whereas, Shri R.P. Bhardwaj, Ex-Chief Manager(MM), ID No. 26190, while

posted at ONGC Mumbai was charge Sheeted vide Memorandum

No.8/1/2001 dates 04/08/2001, under Rule 36 of ONGC CDA Rules -

1994.

Whereas Shri R.P. Bhardwaj submitted his written statement of defence dated

13/09/2001 & 28/09/2001 against the said memorandum dated

04/08/2001.

Whereas Shri Lachman Singh was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, vide

order No.8/01/200f - Vig. Dated 03/11/2001 to inquire into the charges

leveled, vide Memo No.8/1/2001 dated 04/08/2001, under ONGC-CDA

Page 20 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

Rules-1994.

Whereas, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 27/11/2003.

Whereas, the note of disagreement of CDA with the findings of Inquiry

Officer and the report of Inquiry was provided to Shri R.P. Bhardwaj, vide

memorandum No.8/01/2001-Vig. Dated 16/03/2004, under Rule 37(3) of

ONGC CDA Rules - 1994.

Whereas, Shri R.P. Bhardwaj submitted his representation dated

12/04/20043 the said memorandum dated 16/03/2004.

Whereas, the Disciplinary authority carefully examined his said

representation dated 12/04/2004 and going through the records, facts and

circumstances of the case and imposed the major penalty of "Compulsory

retirement" from service, as specified under Rule 34(vii) of ONGC-CDA

Rules-1994, with immediate effect, vide order No.8/01/2001 dated

10/08/2004.

Whereas, Shri R.P. Bhardwaj, submitted an Appeal dated 25/09/2004

addressed to Appellate authority, the Board of Directors of ONGC Limited.

Whereas, the Board having gone through the records, inter-alia Inquiry

report and documents referred therein, as well as the Appeal dated

25/09/2004 of Shri R.P. Bhardwaj, has considered the said Appeal of Shri

R.P. Bhardwaj, in its meeting held on 23/12/2005 and has decided to

withdraw the penalty of "Compulsory Retirement" and instead decided to

impose the penalty of "Reduction to a lower grade/post with a bar to

promotion to the grade/post from which he has been reduced"

Now therefore, instead of the Penalty of Compulsory Retirement, the Board

of Directors of ONGC has decided to impose the Penalty of "Reduction to a

lower grade/post with a bar to promotion to the grade/post from which he

has been reduced". The period of his absence of duty from 10/08/2004 to the

date he joins the service of ONGC will be treated as dies-non, for all

purposes.

The Board of Directors of ONGC hereby directs accordingly. The decision of

the board is hereby conveyed to Shri R.P. Bhardwaj.

Shri R.P. Bhardwaj,

B-201, Techno Park-II

Thakur Village Kandivali (East)

MUMBAI-400 101 CHIEF-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS

21. We are also of the view that in the inquiry report, the disagreement note, the

impugned order dated 10

th

August 2004, and the Appellate Order dated 13

th

April

2006 no ingredient of misconduct as enumerated in Schedule II of the CDA Rules

Page 21 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

has been specified. It has also not been clarified in any of the aforesaid orders as to

which act falling under the “acts and omissions constituting misconduct”, as

enumerated in Schedule II as per rules 3(j) of the CDA Rules covers the alleged

misconduct by the Petitioner. For reference Rule 3(j) of the CDA Rules and

Schedule II annexed to the CDA Rules are reproduced below :-

3. DEFINITIONS:

In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires:

(j) “Misconduct” without prejudice to the generality of the term 'Misconduct' and the

specific provisions made in these Rules, includes acts and omissions specified in the

Schedule II annexed to these Rules.

SCHEDULE II

ACTS AND OMISSIONS CONSTITUTING MISCONDUCT

(See Rule 3(j))

1. Insubordination or disobedience, either alone or in combination with others of any

lawful order of a superior.

2. Use of insolent or impertinent or unparliamentary language in any official

correspondence or in any representation including appeal.

3. Bribery, illegal gratification, sabotage, damage, theft, fraud or dishonesty in

connection with the business or property of the Company.

4. Furnishing false information regarding name, age, father's name, qualification,

ability or previous service or any other matter germane to the employment, at the time

of employment or during the course of employment.

5. Habitual late attendance or irregular attendance, neglect of duty, sleeping while on

duty under any pretext whatsoever, malingering, wilful or habitual absence from duty,

absence without leave, overstaying the sanctioned leave without sufficient cause, or

absence from the appointed place of work without permission or sufficient cause.

6. Approaching higher authorities for promotion or any other personal favour or gain

through other people.

7. Spreading false rumours or giving false information which tends to bring into

disrepute the Company or its employees or spreading panic among them.

8. Gambling within the premises of the establishment.

9. I. Sexual harassment of woman at workplace.

II. Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour.

10. Disclosing to any unauthorised person or persons any information in regard to the

working or process of the Company which comes into the possession of the employee

during the course of his work.

11. Carrying on money lending, canvassing in support of the business or insurance

agency, commission agency etc. owned or managed by his spouse or any other member

of his family or engaging in any trade or business without taking permission of the

Competent Authority.

12. Habitual indebtedness or insolvency.

13. Writing of anonymous or pseudonymous letters or associating oneself in writing

such letters.

14. Striking work alone or in combination with other employees, or inciting them to

strike work in contravention of the provisions of any law or rules having the force of

Page 22 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

law.

15. Shouting of defamatory or disrespectful slogans or issuing or distributing

pamphlets and hand bills or levelling malicious or false allegations.

16. Threatening, intimidating, abusing, or assaulting any employee of the Company.

17. Drunkenness, riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour in the premises of the

Company or outside such premises, where such behaviour is related to or connected

with the employment.

18. Commission of any act which amounts to criminal offence involving moral

turpitude.

19. Causing wilful damage to the work in progress/process or any property or asset of

the Company or of property of another person within the premises of the Company

either wilfully or through negligence.

20. Refusal to accept, warning/ notice/ charge sheet/memo or any other

communication issued by the Management.

21. Breach or violation of any "Terms and Conditions" relating to occupation of

residential accommodation provided by the Company or taking possession/refusal to

vacate any of its premises owned/hired when required by the Company to do so.

22. I. Interference or tampering with any safety device installed in the premises. II.

Any deliberate violation/bypassing of laid down safety practices/equipment.

23. Smoking within the premises of the establishment, or using naked lights, where it

is prohibited.

24. Possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known

sources of income by the employee or on his behalf by another person, which the

employee cannot satisfactorily account for.

25. Misuse of any advance or non-compliance with the provisions or the rules for

grant of any advance.

26. Collection without the permission of the competent authority of any money

within the premises of the Company except as sanctioned by any law of the land for

the time being in force or rules of the Company.

27. Publication of any article, journal, paper or book on any subject prejudicial to the

Company or connected with any work of the Company without the prior permission

of the competent authority.

28. Possession of any lethal weapon in the Company premises or within its precincts

without the prior permission of the competent authority.

29. Conviction in any court of law for any criminal offence.

30. Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Company.

31. Any act or omission punishable under the Law.

32. Breach of any Rules applicable to the Company.

33. Abetment of or attempt at abetment of any act which amounts to misconduct.

34. Any violation of the code of internal procedures and Conduct for prevention of

insider trading in dealing with the securities of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation by

the designated employees.

35. Misconduct committed by an employee in the previous or earlier employment if

such misconduct was of such nature as has a rational nexus with his present

employment and renders him unfit and unsuitable for continuance in service.

36. Using official E-Mail, Internet or other Electronic Equipment or facilities provided

by the Company including OR.NET etc. in violation of the “Netiquette” guidelines of

the Company.

37. Desertion from duty against the Service Rules, unauthorized absence from duty in

any manner or not performing duties.

38. Any violation of the code of internal procedures of insider trading provisions and

SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 by any designated employee.

Note 1: The above are only illustrative and not exhaustive acts/omissions.

Page 23 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

Note 2: Executive instructions vide Schedule III may also be referred to.

22. We are therefore of the considered view that the Respondent-Corporation

has failed to make out any case warranting the imposition of the penalty of

compulsory retirement upon the Petitioner, and the subsequent penalty affecting

his promotion prospects. We are not inclined to accept the submissions advanced

on behalf of the Respondent-Corporation that the penalties imposed are in

consonance with the CDA Rules. We are also of the firm view that the inordinate

delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings in the year 2001 against the Petitioner

for an alleged violation in the year 1991, goes to the very root of the matter and

that by itself vitiates the subsequent orders and actions taken against the Petitioner.

We also find the explanation offered by the Respondents for the inordinate delay in

issuing the chargesheet namely, in the year 2001 for an alleged act of the year 1991

to be wholly unsatisfactory and devoid of merit. The reasons as submitted for the

delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner do not inspire any

confidence and only go to show that a rather bureaucratic approach was adopted on

the part of the Respondent – Corporation. Further the alleged misconduct on the

part of the Petitioner was also taken note of by the Respondent-Corporation after a

lapse of 6 years and action thereon was taken after a further period of 4 years,

thereby showing that the delay was gross.

23. We are further of the view that the decisions relied upon by learned counsel

on behalf of the Petitioner are apposite to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as

there has been an inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against

Page 24 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

the Petitioner, which itself demonstrates the arbitrary and high-handed approach

on part of the Respondent-Corporation to take disciplinary action against the

Petitioner, and thereafter imposition of the penalty by way of the impugned orders.

The following decisions cited by the Petitioner, which are relevant to the facts of

the present case are discussed below:

a) The Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Bani Singh

1

had upheld the orders

passed by the CAT, Jabalpur Bench, wherein the charge memo and departmental

inquiry initiated against the Respondent- Employee had been quashed on the

ground of delay of over 12 years in the initiation of the departmental inquiry, and

the Respondent-Employee had been granted retrospective promotion. The Court

had ruled that the irregularities which were the subject matter of the inquiry had

taken place between the years 1975-77. The Court observed that it was not the case

of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and

came to know it only in 1987, and it was unreasonable to think that they would

have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by

the Tribunal. The Court held that there was no satisfactory explanation for the

inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo, and that it would be unfair to permit

the departmental inquiry to be proceeded with at that stage. Pursuant to the

aforesaid rationale, the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeals filed by the

Appellant-State and upheld the orders of the CAT, Jabalpur Bench. The judgment

rendered by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case is applicable to the

facts of the present case, inasmuch as in the present case also the chargesheet was

1 1990 Supp SCC 738

Page 25 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

issued to the Petitioner on 4

th

August 2001, after a delay of nearly 10 years of the

alleged misconduct that had been committed by the Petitioner.

b) In UCO Bank v. Rajendra Shankar Shukla

2

, the Supreme Court while dealing

with a similar issue of an enormous delay in the issuance of the chargesheet against

the Respondent-Employee, had dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant-Bank

and upheld the order of a Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court. The

Court, while observing that there was a delay of 7 years in issuing the chargesheet

against the Respondent-employee, and that some internal discussions were going

on within the Appellant-Bank, held that the fact that it took the Appellant-Bank 7

years to make up its mind is totally unreasonable and unacceptable. The Court

ruled that on this ground itself, the chargesheet against the Respondent-employee

was liable to be set aside, due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in its

issuance. The Court also held that what compounded the default on the part of the

Appellant-Bank was that the Respondent-Employee was placed in a higher

category as a Manager while all these discussions were going on in the Appellant-

Bank. He was also allowed to cross the efficiency bar again while the discussions

were going on. The Court held that if the Appellant-Bank was serious about

proceeding against the Respondent-employee for misconduct, they would not only

have taken prompt action in issuing a chargesheet but would not have granted him

the benefit of being placed in a higher category or crossing the efficiency bar. Upon

perusal, the facts of the aforesaid judgement are apposite to the facts of the present

2 (2018) 14 SCC 92

Page 26 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

case, as in both instances the chargesheet has been issued to the employees after an

inordinate and inexplicable delay.

c) The Supreme Court

in

R.P. Bhatt v. Union of India

3

dealt with the removal

from service of the Appellant-employee on the ground that the Appellant-

employee had absconded from service to evade the service of an earlier order of

termination. The Appellant-employee, after being dismissed from service had

preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which had also been dismissed.

The Appellant-employee had thereafter challenged the order of the Appellate

Authority before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considers the judgment

rendered by it in the case of State of Madras v. A.R. Srinivasan

4

held that although

it seems somewhat unreasonable to suggest that the State Government must record

its reasons why it accepts the findings of the Tribunal, it is conceivable that if the

State Government does not accept the findings of the Tribunal which may be in

favour of the delinquent officer and proposes to impose a penalty on the

delinquent officer, it should give reasons as to why it differs from the conclusions of

the Tribunal, though even in such a case, it is not necessary that the reasons should

be detailed or elaborate. The Supreme Court had thereafter allowed the appeal

against the order of the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter back to it for

consideration with due application of mind. The Inquiry Officer in the present

case had framed 3 issues in the inquiry proceedings, which were all partly decided

against the Petitioner through the inquiry report dated 27

th

November 2003.

However, the Disciplinary Authority, while disagreeing with the inquiry report

3 (1986) 2 SCC 651

4 AIR 1966 SC 1827

Page 27 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

dated 27

th

November 2003 and deciding the three charges against the Petitioner in

totality had failed to record reasons thereto.

24. In the recent case of Amresh Shrivastava v. State of M.P

5

, the Supreme

Court while dealing with the issue of inordinate delay in the issuance of a

chargesheet in case of departmental inquiry proceedings had held that if the alleged

misconduct was within the knowledge of the Department, and yet inquiry

proceedings were initiated after an inordinate delay, the proceedings would

thereafter stand vitiated. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid decision of the

Supreme Court is reproduced below-

“17. As to the second question, regarding whether delay is a ground for

stopping the departmental proceedings at the stage of the chargesheet

itself, suffice it to say that this varies from case to case. However, in the

instant case where there is unexplained inordinate delay in initiating

departmental proceedings despite the alleged misconduct being within

the knowledge of the department, but still no departmental

proceedings are initiated, the answer must go in favour of the

employee. However, there may be cases where the department was not

even aware of such irregularities or the misconduct, which is of such a

nature that it is indicative, based on material considerations of factors

other than merit, such as extraneous influences and gratifications. In

such cases, such a delay, by itself would not be a valid ground to scuttle

the initiation of the process of departmental proceedings.”

25. We have also carefully perused the decisions relied upon by the learned

counsel for the Respondent-Corporation in support of their contention that the

penalty imposed on the Petitioner was justified. However, in our view, the said

decisions are clearly distinguishable on facts and do not advance the case of the

Respondents in the present matter.

5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 693

Page 28 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

25. The following judgments were cited on behalf of the Respondents, which, in

our opinion, are not applicable to the facts of the present case:

a) In State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha and

another

6

the issue before the Supreme Court arose in the context of the dismissal of

a Private Secretary to a State Minister, against whom serious charges of

misappropriation of funds had been established. The allegations were that the said

Private Secretary had taken undue advantage of the ignorance and disability of the

Minister and had acted in clear breach of his duties, thereby perpetrating fraud and

deceit for unlawful personal gain. These findings were arrived at upon a full-

fledged inquiry, wherein cogent evidence was led, and specific conclusions were

recorded against the delinquent officer. In the backdrop of such established

misconduct, the Supreme Court held that the High Court, in exercise of its writ

jurisdiction, could not re-appreciate or re-evaluate the evidence led before the

Inquiry Officer as if it were an appellate authority. It was observed that the scope of

judicial review is limited to examining the decision-making process and not the

merits of the decision itself. The Court reiterated that it is not open to the High

Court to sit in appeal over the findings of fact recorded in disciplinary proceedings.

On these principles, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed a

grave error in reappreciating the evidence and substituting its own conclusions, as

if exercising appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, the judgment of the High Court

was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance

with law. In our view however the aforesaid decision is not apposite to the facts of

6 (2009)8 Supreme Court Cases 310

Page 29 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

the case inasmuch as in the present case the entire decision making process itself

has been arbitrary and vitiated primarily on the ground that the chargesheet itself

was issued after a delay of 10 years.

b) In the case of E.A. Singh Vs. State of Gujrat

7

, the issue was regarding

proportionality of punishment in respect of the charges made out against the

Petitioner, who was a Sub-Inspector in Gujrat Police, and the charges against the

Petitioner were such that the order of compulsory retirement was contended to be

harsh. It is in the context of these facts that it was held that the High Court, while

exercising powers of judicial review cannot normally substitute its own conclusion

of penalty and impose some other penalty, and further held that the punishment

imposed by the Respondents did not seem to be disproportionate to the proven

charges, as the Disciplinary Authority followed all the procedural requirements,

and hence rejected the arguments of the principles of proportionality. In view of

the aforesaid the Gujarat High Court came to the view that this was not a fit case

where interference of this Court was required under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and hence the Petition was dismissed.

c) In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. P. Gunasekaran

8

, the issue

before the Supreme Court pertained to the integrity of the delinquent officer, who

was working as a Deputy Office Superintendent in a sensitive department of the

Central Excise. Upon appreciation of the material on record, both the Central

Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Disciplinary Authority had concluded that

the charges against the delinquent officer had stood proven. While the Disciplinary

7 2014 SCC OnLine Guj 14772

8 (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 610

Page 30 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

Authority had initially imposed the penalty of dismissal, the same was modified by

the CAT to that of compulsory retirement. In this factual backdrop, the Supreme

Court held that it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction

under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the

quantum of punishment on the ground of proportionality, so long as the

punishment did not shock the conscience of the Court. The Supreme Court further

held that the High Court could not reappreciate the evidence or interfere with the

findings of fact recorded in disciplinary proceedings, provided that the inquiry had

been conducted in accordance with law. It was observed that the scope of judicial

review is limited to examining whether the inquiry was conducted by a competent

authority in accordance with the prescribed procedure, whether the principles of

natural justice were followed, and whether the decision was vitiated by

consideration of irrelevant or extraneous material, or by exclusion of relevant

evidence, or by reliance on inadmissible evidence. In view of the aforesaid

principles, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, and

upheld the order passed by the CAT, thereby allowing the appeal preferred by the

Union of India. In the facts of the present case, as stated above, the entire

proceedings culminating into the penalty imposed on the Petitioner are vitiated

inasmuch as the same have not been carried out in accordance with law, and

therefore aforesaid judgment would not apply to the facts of the present case.

d) Lastly, in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others

9

, the

Supreme Court was concerned with allegations of misconduct involving possession

9. (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 749

Page 31 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income by the delinquent

officer, who was serving as an Income Tax Officer (ITO). In that context, the

Supreme Court reiterated the settled position of law that, while exercising

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court would

not ordinarily interfere with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary or

Appellate Authority, except in cases where such punishment shocks the judicial

conscience. The Court further observed that, in such exceptional circumstances,

the High Court may either direct the competent authority to reconsider the

quantum of punishment or, in rare cases, itself mould the relief by imposing an

appropriate penalty, for cogent and recorded reasons. However, having regard to

the gravity of the misconduct in that case, the Supreme Court held that no

interference with the punishment was warranted. Accordingly, the appeal preferred

by the delinquent officer was dismissed, the appeal of the Union of India was

allowed, and the order of the Tribunal modifying the punishment was set aside,

restoring the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. We are of the

considered view that the aforesaid decision is clearly distinguishable on facts, and

does not assist the Respondents in canvassing their submissions in the present case.

e) Lastly, in the case of Pradeep Hiraman Kale vs The State of Maharashtra

10

the

issue before a Co-ordinate bench of this Court was in the context of the dismissal/

removal of the Petitioner who was a judicial officer from the government service in

exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 5(1)(viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Service

(Conduct) Rules,1979. The allegations were that the Petitioner had accepted a

10 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1214

Page 32 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

bribe through his peon in connection with acquittal of an Accused for an offence

punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

(POCSO) and on the appreciation of evidence and considering that the Petitioner

was a part of the judiciary, this Court was of the view that the findings of the

Disciplinary Authority could not be perverse or without material on record. On the

test of preponderance of probabilities, this Court agreed with the view taken by the

Disciplinary Authority and found the Petitioner guilty of the misconduct as alleged

and hence did not find it a fit case to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. However, in the facts of the present case, as noted by us

above, there has been an inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings against the

Petitioner. Further, the Inquiry Report has also held that charges against the

Petitioner have been partly proved, the disagreement note has been issued in a

mechanical manner, and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated

13

th

April 2006 has reduced the penalty of the Petitioner from compulsory

retirement to “reduction to a lower grade/post, with a bar on promotion to the

grade/post from which he has been reduced.” Further on a preponderance of

probabilities, the charges against the Petitioner could not be proved, and therefore

the facts of the aforesaid case are distinguishable and cannot be applied in the

present case.

26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, considering that the impugned order

dated 10

th

August 2004, the memorandum of disagreement dated 16

th

March

2004, and the Appellate Order dated 13

th

April 2006 have been passed on a non-

consideration of the facts of the case and the documents submitted by the

Page 33 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

Petitioner, and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present Petition deserves

to be allowed. We are also of the view that the Appellate order dated 13

th

April,

2006 in fact has reduced the penalty of compulsory retirement as held in the

impugned order dated 10

th

August, 2004 to reduction to a lower grade/part with a

bar on promotion to the grade/post from which the Petitioner was reduced, goes to

further substantiate our view that the charges against the Petitioner did not stand

proved on the test of ‘preponderance of probabilities’. Therefore, in the merits of

the case too the charges against the Petitioner could not be proved. The fact that

the Caterpillar Engines were required has not been disputed, however only the

method of procurement from the relevant supplier and the urgency to get the same

have been called in question. These charges also have not been proved in as much

as the inquiry report categorically states that the charges are partly proved and

further the memorandum of disagreement also does not proceed on the basis that

there was non-consideration of the evidence by the Inquiry Officer. Accordingly,

the following order is passed:

ORDER

(i) The impugned order dated 10

th

August 2004 passed by the

Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Order dated 13

th

April 2006

passed by the Appellate Authority are hereby quashed and set aside.

(ii) The Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits.

The Petitioner is above 80 years of age, the benefits be granted to the

Petitioner within a period of six weeks from today.

(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

Page 34 of 35

Mane

7-WP-6938-2007 (1) (3).DOC

(iv) At this stage learned counsel for the Respondent seeks stay of this

order. In the light of the above discussion, prayer for stay is rejected.

\

(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Page 35 of 35

Mane