DIRECTOR (MKT.) INDIAN OIL CORP. LTD. AND ANR.versusSANTOSH KUMAR

A         DIRECTOR (MKT.) INDIAN OIL CORP. LTD. AND ANR.
                                v.
                         SANTOSH KUMAR

                                  MAY 23, 2006

B    [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

         Service Law:

          Disciplinary proceeding-Penalty ofdismissal from service--Affirmation
c   ofby Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authoril)r-Writ Petition--Orders
    of the Authorities set aside by High Court on the ground of non-application
    of mind-On appeal, held: The orders of the Authorities set aside and matter
    remitted to Disciplinary Authority for fresh disposal.

          Respondent-employee was charge-sheeted by the appellant-
D   employer. Enquiry Officer found him guilty of 6 out of 8 charges and
    proposed to inflict penalty of dismissal. Disciplinary Authority agreed
    with the findings of Enquiry Officer and ordered for inflicting of penalty
    of 'dismissed' as a measure of disciplinary action against him. The
    appeal of the employee was rejected by Appellate Authority. Employee
E   filed writ Petition alleging that Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate
    Authority had mechanically passed the orders affirming the penalty.
    High Court allowing the Writ Petition set aside the orders of Disciplinary
    Authority and Appellate Authority on the ground of non-application of
    mind and directed reinstatement with continuity and all consequential
    benefits. Hence the present appeal.
F
         Disposing of the appeal, the Court

         HELD: I. A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority
    would only reveal the total non-application of mind by the Appellate
G   Authority. Therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority
    and the Appellate Authority are set aside and matter is remitted for
    fresh disposal to the Disciplinary Authority. (884-G-H, 885-AI

         2. The direction issued by the High Court ordering re-instatement
H   into service with continuity in service and all consequential benefits is
                                        880
      DIRECTOR (Ml<T.) INDIAN OIL CORP. 1•. SANTOSH KUMAR [LAKSHMANAN, J.]   881

also set aside. [885-C)                                                            A
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                  Civil Appeal No. 6979 of
2004.

    From the Judgment/Order dated 3.2.2003 of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in W.P. No. 11144/2000.                                  B
     Jagat Arora, Rajat Arora and Rajiv Nanda, Advs. for the Appellants.

    Manjit Singer, H.K. Kataria and Kamal Mohan Gupta, Advs., for the
Respondent.
                                                                                   c
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : Director (Marketing) and General
Manager (Operations), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. are the appellants before
us. The respondent is a dismissed employee of the Appellant-Corporation.
The respondent joined the appellant - Indian Oil Corporation Limited
                                                                                   D
(hereinafter referred to as "The Corporation") in the year 1987., He was
posted as Assistant Manager (Operation) at Hissar Depot of the Corporation
in the year 1995. He was charge-sheeted on account of irregular supply of
High Speed Diesel to the purchasers without following the procedure. The
incident happened at Hissar Depot and 12 KL of High Speed Diesel was               E
supplied twice from 17.6.1996 to 19.6.1996 against the same challan by the
respondent. A charge-sheet was issued to the respondent. Eight charges were
framed against the respondent. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report
which is available at page 26 to 40 of the paper book. The Enquiry Officer
found the respondent guilty of charge Nos. 1,4,5,6,7 and 8. The other charges
                                                                                   F
have not been proved. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings
of the Enquiry Officer after taking into all aspects of the case into
consideration. The Enquiry Officer proposed to inflict upon the respondent
the major penalty of "dis.missal;' as a measure of disciplinary action against
him. All papers relating to this case, in respect of respondent, were placed
before General Manager (Operations), CDA for his perusal and orders. The           G
Disciplinary Authority after perusing the records and the replies submitted
to the show cause notice together with all papers relating to the disciplinary
proceedings and after applying· his mind ordered for inflicting upon the
respondent the penalty of "dismissal" as a measure of disciplinary action
against him. The period of suspension of respondent wa~, however, treated          H
    882                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   as suspenswn only.

           An appeal was filed against the order of penalty of "dismissal". The
    Disciplinary Authority placed all the papers relating to the case before the
    Director (Marketing), Appellate Authority for his perusal and orders.

B           The Director (Marketing)- Appellate Authority passed the order
    rejecting the appeal of the respondent.

            Aggrieved against the order of dismissal, the respondent preferred
    Civil Writ No. 11144 of 2000 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
    alleging that even though a detailed reply and representation was submitted
c   to the show cause notice, the same has not been gone into and without
    appreciating the stand taken by the respondent, the Disciplinary Authority
    and the Appellate Authority have mechanically passed an order affirming the
    penalty of dismissal upon the respondent.

D         Several other grounds had also been taken on merits of the claim by
    the writ petitioner (respondent herein). The Writ Petition was contested by
    the Corporation by filing its counter in the affidavit. It was also specifically
    stated in the counter-affidavit about the punishment awarded to the respondent
    for theft and fraud etc. and the imposition of punishment of "dismissal" from
    the service.
E
          Before the High Court, a solitary contention was raised on behalf of
    respondent stating that despite a detailed response preferred by the respondent
    herein, the Appellate Authority passed the order dated 15.5.2000 without
    considering any of the issues raised by the respondent herein as petitioner
F   in the writ petition. The learned Judges of the High Court had also perused
    the records placed before them by the Corporation. It is seen from the
    impugned order passed by the High Court that the Judges were satisfied that
    no reasons whatever had been recorded in either not accepting the issues
    raised by the respondent in response to the show cause notice nor had the
    claim of the respondent made in the various grounds raised by him in his
G   appeal been considered. The learned Judges of the Division Bench felt that
    the orders of punishment dated 30.12.1999 as well as the order dated
     15.5.2000 by which the respondent's appeal had been rejected are cryptic
    and non-speaking orders and, therefore, the orders passed by the Disciplinary
    Authority and Appellate Authority are liable to be set-aside on the ground
H   of non-application of mind. The High Court also held that the action taken
      DIRECTOR (MKT.) INDIAN OIL CORP. 1•. SANTOSH KUMAR [LAKSHMANAN, J.]   883

by the authorities is arbitrary. However, the learned Judges, while setting-      A
aside the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order, issued a direction
to the appellant-Corporation to reinstate into service with continuity in
service with all consequential benefits. Liberty was also reserved to the
appellant to re-initiate the enquiry from the stage of consideration by the
Punishing Authority and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
                                                                                  B
     Aggrieved by the above judgment, the Corporation has come up in
appeal before us.

      We have heard Mr. Jagat Arora, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. Manjit Singer, learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel        c
for the Corporation submitted that all the documentary records were placed
before the Disciplinary Authority and also before the Appellate Authority
and that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority after
perusing the entire record and the report of the Enquiry Officer came to the
conclusion tha!the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority
                                                                                  D
and the Appellate Author:ty does not call for any interference. The I.earned
counsel also submitted that the findings of fact recorded by the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority is not liable to be interferred with and
that there is no requirement for giving detailed reasons when the Disciplinary
Authority and Appellate Authority are in agreement with the findings of the
Enquiry Officer. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel for     E
the appellant placed strong reliance on the judgment reported as National
Fertilizers Ltd. and Anr. v. P.K. Khanna, [2005] 7 SCC 597 to which one
of us (Hon. Lakshmanan, J.) was a party. Alternatively the learned counsel
for the appellant also submitted that the direction issued by the High Court
ordering reinstatement into service with continuity in service and all            F
consequential benefits ought not to have been issued at the stage when the
High Court itself found that the enquiry had not been properly conducted
and the officers had not applied their minds before passing the order of
dismissal.

     We have also perused the order passed by the General Manager                 G
(Operations) which is available at page 51- and the order passed by the
Director (Marketing) who is the appellate authority. A close scrutiny of both
the orders would only go to show that the Appellate Authority ]las simply
adopted the language employed by the Disciplinary Authority and inflicted
the punishment of dismissal on the respondent herein.                             H
    884                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A        For the sake of convenience, we extract both the orders available at
    page 51-52 of the paper book:

            "! have carefully gone through Shri Santosh Kumar, Emp. No.
            19957, Ex-AM(Ops) Hissar Depot's appeal dated 25.3.2000 together
            with all papers relating to the disciplinary case initiated against him
B           vide charge-sheet No. IR/1461/(N-l I 3) dated 24.6.97 in the capacity
            of the Competent Disciplinary Authority.



                                                                                       ..
            I have applied my mind and I find that Shri Santosh Kumar has not
            brought out any point in his appeal dated 25.3.2000 which may
c           warrant any change in the said final order passed by me as the
            Competent Disciplinary Authority.

            The appeal of Shri Santosh Kumar is hereby forwarded to
            Director(M)-the Appellate Authority for his kind consideration and
            orders.
D
                                                 General Manager (Operations )

            I have carefully gone through Shri Santosh Kumar, Emp. No.
            199 57, Ex-AM(Ops) Hissar Depot's appeal dated 25 .3.2000 together
            with all papers relating to the .disciplinary case initiated against him
E           vide charge-sheet No. IR/1461/(N-113) dated 24.6.97. Shri Santosh
            Kumar has preferred an appeal against the order of penalty of
            "Dismissal", inflicted upon him by GM(Ops.)--the Competent
            Disciplinary Authority vide reference No. IR/1461/(N-113) dated
            30.12.1999 as a measure of disciplinary action against Shri Santosh
F           Kumar.

            I have applied my mind and I find that Shri Santosh Kumar has not
            brought out any point which may warrant my interference with the
            said orders passed by the Competent Disciplinary Authority.
            Accordingly, I hereby reject the appeal of Shri Santosh Kumar. Let
G           Shri Santosh Kumar be advised accordingly.
                                                           Director (Marketing)"

         A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority would only
H   reveal the total non-application of mind by the Appellate Authority. We,
      D!JlECTOR (MKT.) INDIAN OIL CORP. 1·. SANTOSH KUMAR [LAKSHMANAN, J.]   885

therefore, have no other option except to set-aside the order passed by the        A
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority and remit the matter for
fresh disposal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority shall
consider the detailed representation made by the respondent and also
consider the detailed report of the Enquiry Officer and the records placed
before him in its proper perspective and decide the matter afresh on merits.
The Disciplinary Authority is directed to consider the entire case only on the
                                                                                   B
basis of records already on record. The respondent is not permitted to place
any further material or record before the Disciplinary Authority. The order
passed by the High Court is set-aside for the above reason. We also set-aside
the direction issued by the High Court ordering re-instatement into service
with continuity in service and all consequential benefits. The Disciplinary        c
Authority is also directed to dispose of the matter, within three months from
the date of receipt of this order, after affording an opportunity to both the
parties. The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

K.K.T.                                                     Appeal disposed of.