THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI Writ Appeal No.136/2015 1. SRI CHITTARANJAN DASH CHIEF MANAGER (FINANCE & ACCOUNTS), OIL INDIA LTD., 4 INDIA EXCHANGE PLACE, ICC BUILDING, KOLKATA 700001. -Versus- 1. OIL INDIA LIMITED, PLOT NO. 19, SECTOR-16-A, NOIDA, U.P. PIN 201301, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, OIL INDIA LTD. 2. THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING, OIL INDIA LTD., PLOT NO. 19, SECTOR-16-A, NOIDA, U.P. PIN 201301. 3. THE RESIDENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OIL INDIA LTD. DULIAJAN, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN 786602. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER (F&A) OIL INDIA LTD., DULIAJAN, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN 786602. Appellant. Respondents. BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO Advocate for the petitioner: Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. D. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. P.K. Barman & Ms. D.D. Barman. Mr. S.N. Sarma, Sr. Advocate & Mr. A. Sarma. Dates of hearing: 17.02.2017 & 21.02.2017. Date of judgment: 21.02.2017. JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) (Hrishikesh Roy, J). Heard Mr. D. Mozumdar, the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant/writ petitioner. The Oil India Ltd. and their officers are represented by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.N. Sarma. Writ Appeal No.136/2015 1 of 6
2. The matter pertains to a disciplinary proceeding against the Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the Oil India Ltd. It relates to the period when the officer was functioning as the Senior Accounts Officer/Project In-charge of the Bay Exploration Project (BEP) of the oil company at Paradeep Port, Orissa. On conclusion of the proceeding drawn up under the OIL Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Conduct Rules ), the penalty of censure was inflicted on 19.2.2009 upon the delinquent. When the Appellate Authority upheld the minor penalty, the disciplinary action was challenged through the WP(C) No.6082/2010. 3. Before the Writ Court, the delinquent asserted that he committed no wrong and it is not a case of failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. The charges were described as vague and unspecific. Moreover the inquiry proceeding was contended to be vitiated, for non-examination of relevant witnesses and also misconstruing the evidence on record. 4. However the learned Single Judge found that the charges were clear and not vague. That findings were given on the basis of relevant materials and all opportunities were afforded to the delinquent, to defend the charges. Thus no infirmity was seen in the disciplinary action and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed under the impugned judgment dated 26.2.2015 (Annexure-G) and now the aggrieved party is before the Appellate Court. 5. The charge memo against the delinquent under Rule 25 of the Conduct Rules was formulated on 10.3.2005 and the article of charges being relevant, are extracted here-in-below, for ready reference: That Shri C.R. Dash, Manager (F&A), Oil India Limited, Duliajan (S.Code- 1837), previously remained posted and functioning as Sr. Accounts Officer/Project In-charge, BEP. The said Shri C.R. Dash, while working as such, is alleged to have shown leniency towards M/s ATS and caused favour to them, committed willful negligence and carelessness in the performance of his duties and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Company, which resulted in huge financial loss as could be seen from the following- 2. It is alleged that a sale order No.SALE/003/93 dated 06-08-1993 for disposal of scrap material was placed on M/s ATS by BEP/OIL, on which custom clearance was delayed inordinately. However, B/E was cleared on 15-10-1997, but the party kept on asking for the extensions in time which were granted. Following to the generation of additional scrap of 400 MT, Shri Dash in violation of procedure offered the said additional scrap to M/S ATS @ Rs.1809/- without taking approval of the competent authority. An unjustified/illogical and baseless proposal dated 29-07-1998 was thereafter moved, which was rejected by Writ Appeal No.136/2015 2 of 6
the Director (F). M/s ATS subsequently used this uncalled for and unauthorized offer in obtaining interim order dated 18-08-1998 from the Orissa High Court. 3. It is alleged that he alongwith Shri D.K. Dutta, the then Sr. Manager (M) unfavourably negotiated with the party M/s ATS vide Minutes of meeting dated 19-02-1999 and the sale price of rock bits, which was fixed at Rs.55009/- PMT, in the first Sale Order was reduced subsequently to an unjustified/unreasonable price of Rs.3000/- PMT, which would have fetch revenue to the tune of Rs.8,32,144/- for the Company, despite the fact that the party himself had committed to take the rock bits @55009/ PMT on 29-07-1998. 4. It is alleged that he along with other members of the committee submitted a proposal No.BEP/225 dated 02-02-1999 seeking approval of the competent authority wherein vital facts were concealed and misleading information was furnished for disposal of additional scrap of 400 MT and rock bits of earlier sale order. The said misleading note/proposal submitted to the corporate office, lead to erroneous approval by the CMD. This was a motivated and willful attempt to cause undue favour to the party. 6. In his reply dated 26.3.2005, the delinquent questioned the timing of the charge on 10.3.2005 when the concerned scrap from the Paradeep Port was disposed of, in the year 2000. He also described the charges as vague and not comprehensible. But finding the reply to be unconvincing, an enquiry was ordered against the delinquent and four others, involved with the same misconduct. 7. Following the preliminary hearing, inspection of documents and submission of list of defence documents/witnesses was permitted and the charged officers were furnished the Xerox copies of the statements and documents. The hearings were held on different dates and the parties participated in the proceeding. Eventually the Inquiry Officer in his report dated 16.6.2007 (Annexure-I), recorded the following findings: 5. Findings: In view of the above discussion of evidence, documentary and oral, the findings on the articles of charge, are as under:- Article-I : Held as proved Article-II : Held as partly proved Article-III : Held as proved. 8. The Managing Director of Oil India Ltd. considered the inquiry findings and also the response of the delinquent to the inquiry report. Then under the order dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure-K), the minor penalty of censure, under Rule 23.1.1(a) of the Conduct Rules was inflicted on the charged officer. Although an Writ Appeal No.136/2015 3 of 6
appeal was preferred, the Appellate Authority upheld the order of the disciplinary authority, through the order dated 18.8.2010 (Annexure-L). 9. The substance of the imputation of misconduct, as can be noticed, was the alleged leniency shown by the Project-in-charge, towards M/s. ATS Ltd., during the scrap disposal exercise, in the Bay Exploration Project. The learned Single Judge noted that the petitioner was associated with the disposal of the scrap materials, lying at the Paradeep Port, when the Vigilance Case No.03/2002, was started against him. In the disciplinary proceeding, the charges were found to have been established through a due process, conducted in accordance with the applicable norms and it was held that no case for intervention is made out and thus the writ petition was dismissed on 26.2.2015 (Annexure-G). 10. On the issue of undue favour shown by the delinquent, towards M/s. ATS Ltd., it is relevant to record that the Oil India placed a sale order on 6.8.1993 for disposal of scrap material in the Bay Exploration Project with M/s. ATS Ltd. The party applied for multiple extensions and in the meantime, when additional scrap materials were generated in the project area, the delinquent unilaterally offered the additional scrap to M/s. ATS Ltd., at a very low rate, without taking approval of the competent authority. Eventually the proposal mooted by him was not accepted by the Director (Finance) but nevertheless, an attempt was noticed to show undue favour to the M/s. ATS Ltd., by the Project-in-charge. 11. To appreciate the charge of undue favour to M/s. ATS Ltd., it will be essential to take notice of the letter of M/s. ATS Ltd., written on 29.7.1998, whereby the offer made by the Project-in-charge to dispose of the additional scrap materials is seen. Under the delegation of powers in the Oil India, notified on 3.5.1991, the General Manager (Project) is the officer who is competent to declare any materials as obsolete and to prescribe the mode of disposal of such scrap materials. But in the instant case, the charged officer without any authority to deal with scrap materials, had made the offer to M/s. ATS Ltd., as can be seen from the response of the offeree, in their letter dated 29.7.1998. 12. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment referred in detail to the above letter dated 29.7.1998, of M/s. ATS Ltd. and also the implication of that letter. The culpability of the delinquent on his attempt to show undue favour to the party with contemporaneous records was also noticed by the Court and on this aspect, a logical conclusion was reached by the writ court. Writ Appeal No.136/2015 4 of 6
13. Upon extensive consideration of the rival case, it was concluded that the charges were not vague or incomprehensible, since elaborate reply was given by the delinquent with complete understanding of the allegations. The oral and documentary evidence on which conclusions were reached by the Inquiry Officer, was also noted by the Court. The opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce defence evidence offered to the charged officer, was found to be adequate and hence the finding on fairness of the inquiry was given. The Court thus negated the contention that the findings are based on no evidence or that they suffer from any perversity. After due analysis of all the materials, the learned Judge opined that disciplinary action was taken through due process in accordance with the Conduct Rules. In the context of other senior officers being part of the same disciplinary proceeding, the Court found acceptable justification for exercise of appellate power by the Board of Directors of the Oil India. Thus through elaborate analysis of all factors, the writ petition came to be dismissed, under the impugned order dated 26.2.2015 (Annexure-G). 14. When a Court exercises the power of judicial review in respect of a disciplinary proceeding, the Writ Court s power is not to be exercised as an Appellate Court. The Court s scrutiny is meant to verify that the individual receives fair treatment but it is not intended to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reached, is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. In fact, the disciplinary authority is considered to be the sole judge of facts and when a reasonable finding is reached on the basis of some relevant evidence, intervention in exercise of judicial power, is not generally warranted (see B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749). 15. In the present case, the delinquent was not authorized to make any offer or deal for the scrap sale and therefore, the offer made by him to M/s. ATS Ltd., is beyond his competence. This was a deliberate act and cannot be treated as a case of carelessness or negligence, as has been urged by the delinquent s lawyer. Therefore, the ratio in Union of India vs. J. Ahmed, reported in (1979) 2 SCC 286 and also in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407, which are cited by Mr. Mazumdar, are found to be inapplicable to the facts in the present case. 16. The letter written by M/s. ATS Ltd. on 29.7.1998 was a direct response to the offer made by the delinquent and there was no attempt by the charged Writ Appeal No.136/2015 5 of 6
officer at any stage of the disciplinary action, to disassociate with the contents of this letter. Hence the conduct of the officer cannot be described as a negligent act or an error of judgment but appeared to be a motivated one. It is quite another thing that the higher authority shot down the proposal or else this could have entailed substantial financial loss to the OIL India. 17. From the elaborate reply furnished by the delinquent on 26.3.2005, it can be easily inferred that the charges were clearly understood as he dealt in detail with all the allegations, in his response. Therefore, no advantage can be gained by the appellant from the ratio of Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P. Education Society, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515, where the Court was considering a case of vague charges, where the delinquent was unaware of the exact nature of allegation against him. 18. The standard of proof in a disciplinary proceeding does not require finding beyond reasonable doubt but if the charges are established on the basis of some evidence on the criteria of preponderance of probability, the burden is discharged by the prosecution. Of course conclusion cannot be reached on the basis of irrelevant facts or by ignoring relevant facts. But in the case in hand, the learned Single Judge after due consideration of the materials, concluded that the findings were recorded on the basis of cogent materials and there is no perversity with the conclusion drawn against the delinquent. Thus relief was denied in the case. 19. During consideration of the Appeal, we too have examined the materials on the basis of which the disciplinary action was taken. The logical analysis of the case by the learned Single Judge, is also noted. We find no infirmity with the reasoning and the conclusion in the impugned judgment 26.2.2015 (Annexure- G). Accordingly the Appeal is dismissed, by leaving the parties to bear their respective cost. JUDGE JUDGE Barman Writ Appeal No.136/2015 6 of 6