Bombay High Court
Kuldeep Kumar Sethee vs Mr. R.S. Sharma on 15 November, 2010
Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, A.A. Sayed
1
os-wp-2033-07
pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2033 OF 2007
Kuldeep Kumar Sethee .. Petitioner
Vs.
Mr. R.S. Sharma, CMD, ONGC and ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Ajay Shinde for petitioner.
Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naushad Engineer a/w Mr. V.P.
Perieria i/by Divya Shah and Associate for respondent nos.1,2,4, 5, 7, 15
and 18.
Mrs. S.V. Bharucha a/w Mr. D.A. Dubey for respondent no.11.
CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE &
A. A. SAYED, JJ.
Reserved On : September 21, 2010.
Pronounced On : November 15, 2010.
JUDGMENT: (Per B. H. Marlapalle, J.)
1. The petitioner is born on 13/9/1954 and after acquiring a
bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering from IIT Delhi, he came to be
appointed as an officer, Q-1 (Grade-I) under the Oil and Natural Gas
os-wp-2033-07
Corporation Limited (ONGC for short) with effect from 11/11/1977. The
classification of the officers in ONGC is as follows:
E0 Class-II Officers
E1-E4 Class-I Officers
E5-E9 Class-I Corporate Level
Above E9 Directors & CMD
The petitioner came to be promoted from time to time and the
last promotion he was granted was in the year 1995 to the post of
Superintending Engineer (E & T) at E4 level. He claims that he was
entitled for further promotion to E5 level on completion of three years of
service in the post of Superintending Engineer and the subsequent
promotions, but he being a whistle blower, exposed serious acts of
corruption in ONGC and the management got annoyed and started
harassing him, he was denied his due promotion to E5 level onwards, his
ACRs were spoiled and he was hounded with disciplinary actions.
2. The petitioner approached this court in Writ Petition No. 1887
of 2000 praying for directions to grant him promotion to E5 level and the
os-wp-2033-07
said petition was dismissed on 14/2/2001. In the year 2002-03, ONGC
introduced an internet Portal known as "ongcreports.net" so as to provide a
platform "Forum" and "Feedback". It was intended that the employees
could discuss work related issues and solve work problems of the
employees and also to create database knowledge and ideas. However, it
was not platform meant to malign, slander or accuse the management of
ONGC on purported grounds of mal-administration, victimization or
mismanagement of its resources. As per the petitioner, the Chairman and
Managing Director (CMD) of ONGC in response to a letter by an
employee exposing corruption in ONGC, exhorted all employees to come
forward and expose corruption with the words "if you really love ONGC,
speak up, thrash the rascals, that will be your best individual award, a clean
conscience.". The petitioner claims that many employees have been using
the Portal and responded the call of CMD and expressed their views of
different matters, including management, promotion and corruption etc.
However, ONGC had never proceeded against any such employee.
3. On 24/12/2004 the petitioner addressed an e-mail to the CMD
pointing out corruption. He again sent an e-mail to CMD, the Directors
and Chief Vigilance Officer of ONGC on 5/1/2005 pointing out the alleged
os-wp-2033-07
casual attitude of key officials on job assignments and organograms.
Before this, it appears that on 31/8/2004 the petitioner was counseled that
his behaviour by posting comments on the Portal and making allegations
against senior managers was unbecoming of an officer of his level and that
he should not indulge in such acts in future. It appears that by letter dated
5/1/2005 his explanation was sought and it was indicated that he may have
to face disciplinary proceedings. Instead of following the advice so given
to him, he posted yet another e-mail on 7/1/2005 on the Portal. He did not
stop here alone and on 10/1/2005 he addressed a letter to the Board of
Directors pointing out acts of omissions and commissions in the matter of
promotions etc. On 12/1/2005, he raised an issue with regard to misuse of
office by some officers in the ONGC by an e-mail on the Portal. On the
very next day i.e. 13/1/2005, he referred to the acts of omissions and
commissions by Mr. S.D. Mathur, Deputy General Manager (Programme)
and on 15/1/2005 he addressed yet another e-mail on the Portal to the CMD
and purportedly urged to ensure transparency at the operations level in
ONGC. In the e-mail dated 6/4/2005 he used insolent language, casting
aspirations on the management, slandering CMD of ONGC and alleging
that the CMD and the Directors and key senior officers had committed
illegitimate, unfair, discriminatory and emotional assaults on ONGC
os-wp-2033-07
employees and had committed acts which were criminal in nature. He also
alleged that there was abuse and misuse of power. This resulted in a show
cause notice/charge-sheet dated 14/4/2005 addressed to the petitioner. He
alleged to have committed the following gross misconduct:-
(a) leveling false and baseless allegations against the CMD and
Directors of the Company,
(b) using insolent and impertinent language which were
addressed to the higher Authorities,
(c) misusing the portal to cast aspirations on the integrity of
the higher Authorities thus, spreading false rumors and
(d) the petitioner had communicated with external Authorities
about ONGC without prior permission of the competent
authority.
4. After being served with the show cause notice, he uploaded
the show cause notice onto the ONGC portal and further threatened to
forward all and any communication received by him from the management
to the external authorities. Hence he was issued a second show cause
notice on 22/4/2005. At this stage he approached this court by filing Writ
os-wp-2033-07
Petition No. 1636 of 2005 in the second round and prayed for orders for
just compensation to him. He also sought directions that till his promotion
issue was resolved, all corporate level promotions be stayed by way of an
interim injunction and for a further declaration that in all his pending
ACRs his performance be deemed to be treated as outstanding. He further
sought directions to promote him to the post of Chief Engineer (Electronics
and Telecom ) with effect from 1/1/1998. A host of other prayers were also
made in this petition which was disposed by this court on 17/1/2006 with
the observations that in the event an order passed at the end of the enquiry
was adverse to the petitioner, it would not be acted for a period of four
weeks after the same was served on the petitioner.
5. The petitioner, rather than submitting his reply to the charge-
sheet, submitted a representation to the Chief Justice of this court on
19/4/2005. However, he submitted his reply to the charge-sheets on
12/5/2005 and Mr. H. P. Singh, Ex. DIG CBI was appointed as the Inquiry
Officer, on or about 16/8/2005. The inquiry was conducted in which the
petitioner appeared pursuant to the observation made by this court in the
order dated 17/1/2006 and the Inquiry Officer submitted his reports in both
the inquiries on 12/2/2006 and he held that the petitioner did not deny to
os-wp-2033-07
have written the e-mails and that he was found guilty of committing the
misconduct. A copy of the Inquiry Officer's report in both the charge-
sheets was made available to him through two different memorandums
addressed to him on 22/2/2006. On 30/3/2006, in the regular round of
transfers, the petitioner came to be transferred to Mehsana from the Uran
Plant. However, he refused to comply with the said transfer, as contended
by the management. At this stage he approached this Court in the third
round by filing Writ Petition No. 1898 of 2006 so as to (a) challenge the
transfer, (b) quash the enquiry proceedings, (c) to restore the online rights
available to him and (d) seek promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. This
petition was dismissed on 25/7/2006. However, he was allowed to keep
possession of the Mumbai premises so that his family could stay till the
annual examination of his daughter to be held in March, 2007. On 9th
March, 2007, he filed this petition for various reliefs and on 28/3/2007, the
Director (HR) of ONGC passed an order and imposed the penalty of
removal from service, not amounting to a disqualification for future
employment. It appears that he filed an appeal against the said order to the
CMD and the same was dismissed on 18/8/2007. Consequently, the
petition came to be amended and thus the reliefs prayed for in this petition
are to quash and set aside the order of removal dated 28/3/2007 confirmed
os-wp-2033-07
by the Appellate Authority dated 18/8/2007 and also to grant him all
consequential benefits of promotion etc. while challenging the legality of
the enquiry proceedings as well as the transfer order. By way of interim
relief, he also prayed for stay on all promotions.
6. The charges in the first charge-sheet dated 14/4/2005 were of
gross misconduct and enumerated as under:
(a) The delinquent had vide his comments dated 6/4/2005
uploaded on "Feedback Forum" of ongcreports.net addressed
to C&MD, Directors and others have leveled false and
baseless allegation on them of allowing officers of ONGC to
misuse their powers.
(b) He used insolent and impertinent language in his
comments dated 6/4/2005 which was addressed to the higher
authorities of the Company.
(c) He misused the internal news portal i.e. ongcreorts.net to
cast aspersions on the integrity of the higher authorities, thus
spreading false rumors amongst the ONGC employees.
(d) Admittedly he communicated with the external authorities
os-wp-2033-07
about ONGC without prior permission of the competent
authority.
Whereas in the second charge-sheet dated 22/4/2005 he was
charged of following acts of misconduct:
(a) The delinquent misused the internal news portal i.e.
ongcreports.net to upload a confidential document (a part of
the Memorandum served to him on 15/4/2005) on "Feedback
Forum" of ongcreports.net without prior permission of the
competent authority.
(b) He, in his communication dated 19/4/2005 uploaded on
"Feedback Forum" of ongcreports.net has threatened to
forward any/all communications received by him from the
management to the external authorities.
(c) He acted in contravention to the lawful orders of his
superiors by submitting an informal defense statement against
the Memorandum dated 15/4/2005 through e-mail for
furthering his personal interest by generating en-masse
sympathy.
os-wp-2033-07
7. Both the charge-sheets were issued under Rule 36 of the
ONGC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1994 (for short the D & A
Rules). It was alleged that by writing letters via e-mail in the Feedback
Forum of ongcreports.net to the CMD and Directors as well as CVO etc.
the delinquent had acted in contravention of Rule 25(3) of the D & A Rules
and his writing letters by e-mail on 10/1/2005 to the Chief Justice of this
court, on 20/12/2005 to the Union Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas
and the CVO and CBI, had acted in contravention of Rule 25(4) of the D &
A Rules. It was further alleged that he had failed to maintain devotion to
duty and indulged in gross misconduct in using disrespectful language in
his letters addressed to higher authorities and spreading false rumors about
them and thus he acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the
company and rendered himself liable for the disciplinary action under Rule
36 of the D & A Rules. In the second charge-sheet, it was alleged that by
his acts of threatening to forward any/ all communications received by him
from the management to the external authorities and also to continue
making confidential matters public through the internet and e-mails he had
failed to maintain devotion to duty and rendered himself liable for
disciplinary action under the provisions contained in Rule 4(1)(b) and (c)
os-wp-2033-07
and Rule 14(i) read with Sl.No.1,2,7,9(ii), 27, 30 and 33 of Schedule II
referred to at Rule 3(j) of the D & A Rules.
8. The petitioner submitted a joint reply to both the charge-sheets
on 12/5/2005 and denied that his comments on the e-mail had spread any
false propaganda amongst the employees of ONGC and there was no case
to believe or suggest that the employees were misled. He also stated that
he had high regards for the integrity, capability and dynamic leadership of
the CMD and Directors and CVO. He also offered to express his apology
for any unintended inappropriate projection which might have been
misinterpreted. He also mentioned about approaching this court by filing
Writ Petition No. 1636 of 2005. He stated that the ONGC Officers are
highly qualified, of matured minds and not illiterate or school kids to be
impressed by his e-mail on the Feedback Forum. Thus, he denied the
charges of gross misconduct. The Inquiry Officer commenced the enquiry
proceedings and in view of the admitted position of the uploading of e-
mails addressed to the CMD as well as various authorities outside ONGC,
the management examined only one witness i.e. Shri Pallab Bhattacharya,
who was the DGM (Corporate Communication) at New Delhi. He was
os-wp-2033-07
examined on 30/9/2005 and on 17/10/2005 before the Enquiry Officer. On
30/9/2005 his depositions were in respect of the first charge-sheet dated
15/4/2005 and the depositions recorded on 17/10/2005 were in respect of
the second charge-sheet dated 22/4/2005. On both dates the petitioner
cross-examined Mr. Bhattacharya. This witness was examined only with an
intention to bring on record the purpose of the portal Feedback Forum on
ongcreports.net and that it was meant only for the employees of ONGC for
channelizing information which is organization specific for the employees
at large. This witness pointed out that there were two platforms for the
employees in ongcreports and the first one was called "Forum" and second
one was "Feedback". Forum was meant for an issue probably thrown by
an employees which then comes under discussion by other employees,
whereas Feedback is meant for an issue which already exists and
employees are commenting on that and the issues should be organization
related. He also stated that since the platform is meant to deal with
organization related issues, the comments/views posted by an employee
should be organization specific without propagating individual grievances
either against the organization or co-employees. The platform could not
be used to cast aspersions against management, including C&MD,
Directors and senior officers. It was clarified that this platform was not
os-wp-2033-07
meant for use by the employees for their personal matters to be taken at the
official level, though it was open to the employees for posting their
comments.
9. The Enquiry Officer considered the e-mails uploaded by the
petitioner, the depositions of Mr. Bhattacharya and the written submissions
made by the Presenting Officer and submitted his two separate reports on
12/2/2006. The Enquiry Officer held that charges leveled in the charge-
sheet dated 14/5/2005 were proved. He held that the portal dated 6/4/2005
uploaded by the petitioner on the Feedback Forum not only spread
confusion amongst the employees for all practical purposes but also led
them to have anti management outlook which was again uncalled for, for
the broader interest of the organization, management and employees. All
the charges leveled against the petitioner were held to be proved. By two
separate memorandums dated 22/2/2006 while forwarding the copies of the
enquiry report under Rule 37(2) of the D & A Rules so as to provide an
opportunity for making representation against the findings of the enquiry
officer, he was called upon to submit such representation within 10 days
from the date of receipt of the memorandum. On 17/3/2006 he submitted a
reply by e-mail to the Director (HR). He asked the Director (HR) to verify
os-wp-2033-07
whether the entire matter was approved by the CMD in writing and also
relied upon the order passed by this court on 17/1/2006 dismissing Writ
Petition No. 1636 of 2005. On 12/5/2005, he submitted yet another reply
addressed to the Director (HR) on the letterhead of ONGC (Mumbai
Region). He reiterated that he was not guilty of spreading rumors or
misinformation amongst the employees of ONGC and against the
management and senior officers. On 28/3/2007 the Director (HR) passed
an order imposing against the petitioner the penalty of removal from
service which shall not be a disqualification for the future employment
from the date of the order. It was pointed out in the said order that after the
memos dated 22/2/2006 were addressed to the petitioner and the Enquiry
Officer's findings were forwarded to him, he did not submit any
representation and vide subsequent letter dated 14/1/2007 he was given a
second opportunity to submit his reply. The petitioner had submitted his
reply dated 22/12/2006 and on careful consideration of the same as well as
the enquiry officer's findings, it was proved that he had failed to maintain
devotion to the duty and indulged in gross misconduct of using
disrespectful language in his letter addressed to the higher authorities and
spreading false rumors about them. He had misused the internal news
portal of ONGC for furthering his personal interests, threatening the
os-wp-2033-07
superiors to forward all communications received by him from the
management to the external authorities and to continue making confidential
matters public through the internet and e-mails.
10. The petitioner submitted his appeal against the said order to
the CMD and it came to be dismissed by the order dated 18/8/2007. The
Chairman and Managing Director of ONGC in the said order stated that he
had carefully considered the appeal submitted by the petitioner, the
findings of the Enquiry Officer in both the reports, the facts brought
forward in the appeal and other facts and circumstances of the case on
record and having applied his mind to the totality of the case, he was
satisfied that there was no material brought on record by the petitioner in
order to take a different view than the view taken by the disciplinary
authority. Hence under Rule 51 (2)(c)(i) of the D & A Rules, the appeal
submitted by the petitioner was rejected and the punishment imposed by
the disciplinary authority was confirmed.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to his oral
arguments, placed before us the synopsis of his written arguments and
submitted that there was no case of any misconduct made out, the charge-
os-wp-2033-07
sheets were absolutely vague and general, there was no evidence in the
enquiry to link the petitioner with the alleged misconduct. The petitioner
was not provided the list of witnesses and their statements and on that
count the enquiry was vitiated. It was further submitted that under the
jurisdiction of judicial review, this court can set aside the findings, if there
was no evidence in support. It was also alleged that the appellate authority
failed to apply his mind and to record reasons. Even otherwise, the
punishment imposed on the petitioner was highly disproportionate, even if
it was assumed that the charges of misconduct were proved against him. In
support of these arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the following decisions:-
(a) Union of India and ors. vs. K. K. Dhawan [(1993) 2 SCC
56].
(b) Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan [(1986) 3 SCC 454].
(c) Bank of India and anr. vs. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999) 5
SCC 762.
(d) Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
[(1999) 2 SCC 10].
(e) Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
os-wp-2033-07
and ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 713]
(f) State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. vs. Ram Daras Yadav
[(2010) 2 SCC 236]
12. The learned counsel for the ONGC, on the other hand,
submitted that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was in keeping
with the principles of natural justice and there was no procedural error so as
to vitiate the said enquiry on any count. The charges leveled against the
petitioner have been duly proved and the findings recorded by the enquiry
officer cannot be termed to be perverse. It was also submitted that the past
conduct of the petitioner indicated that despite showing him leniency, he
continued to unleash his allegations against the management and the senior
officers with more vigor and in uncontrolled as well as unpardonable
language. The learned counsel for the ONGC submitted that the petitioner
by his own acts duly proved that he was a habitual offender and despite the
fact that he was counseled in the year 2004 he did not show any
improvements and continued to make public statements against the Board
of Directors as well as CMD. While protecting the petitioner's right to
express his views on the Feedback Forum, it was necessary to have a
proper balancing of the right to express personal views and the allegations
os-wp-2033-07
being made against the senior functionaries in the organisation. The
individual freedom of the petitioner to express such views cannot be
expanded or misused to level wild and reckless allegations against the
senior functionaries of the organisation and that too on the internal portal of
ONGC. It was also submitted that in a writ petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution, this court is not required to embark upon reappreciating
the evidence recorded by the domestic tribunal and so long as there is
some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer,
the same has to be sustained. The power of this court to interfere with the
quantum of punishment is extremely restricted and can be exercised only in
rare and shocking cases. If all the procedural requirements have been met,
the High Court would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of
punishment imposed upon a delinquent - employee and if the decision of
the employer is found to be within the legal parameters, there would be no
case to interfere with the managerial decision to award a particular
punishment. While exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court
or a tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the
disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority with regard
to the imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers from
illegality or material procedural irregularity or it would shock the
os-wp-2033-07
conscience of the court/tribunal. In support of these arguments, the learned
counsel for the ONGC placed reliance on the following decisions:-
(a) M. H. Devendrappa vs. Karnataka State Small Industries
Development Corporation [(1998) 3 SCC 732].
(b) Bank of India and anr. vs. Degala Suryanarayana [AIR
1999 SC 2407]
(c) Chairman and Managing Director, VSR and ors. vs.
Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu [(2008) 5 SCC 569].
(d) Praveen Bhatia vs. Union of India and ors. [(2009) 4 SCC
225].
(e) Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli
vs. Gulabhia M. Lad [(2010) 5 SCC 775]
13. We have gone through both the charge-sheets, the replies
submitted by the petitioner to the same, the depositions of Mr.
Bhattacharya, the written submissions made by the Presenting Officer and
the enquiry officer's findings. In Rule 3(j) of the D & A Rules the term
"misconduct" has been defined as under:
os-wp-2033-07
"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."
Rule 25 is titled as pressing of claim or seeking redress of a
grievance in service matters. As per Rule 25(3), a representation to the
Director or the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company shall not
be made unless all means of seeking redress from lower authorities have
been completely exhausted. As per Rule 25(4), no representation, appeal,
petition or memorial shall be addressed by an employee to the Director or
the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company personally or to any
outside Authority or an Authority not specified under these Rules. Provided
that an employee belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe may write
directly to the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on
matters relating to appointments against the reserved quota. Rule 36 of the
D & A Rules has listed the nature of penalty i.e. minor penalties and major
penalties. Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for
future employment is a major penalty under Rule 34(viii) of the D & A
os-wp-2033-07
Rules. Rule 36 of the D & A Rules provides for the procedure of imposing
the major penalty and as per subrule (3) thereunder, where it is proposed to
hold an inquiry against an employee under the said Rule and Rule 37, the
Disciplinary Authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance
of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct
articles of charges and also follow the procedure as laid down thereunder.
Rule 37 of the D & A Rules deals with the action on inquiry report. We
have no doubt in our mind that the procedural requirements as laid down in
Rules 36 and 37 of the D & A Rules have been fully met and the
disciplinary proceedings do not suffer from any procedural infirmities or on
account of the breach of principles of natural justice, in the instant case.
14. Schedule -II annexed to the D & A Rules has listed the acts and
omissions constituting misconduct and some of the relevant acts and
misconduct are reproduced hereunder:
(2) Use of insolent or impertinent or unparliamentary
language in any official correspondence or in any
representation including appeal.
(7) Spreading false rumours or giving false information which
os-wp-2033-07
tends to bring into disrepute the Company or its employees or
spreading panic among them.
(9)(ii) Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of
good behaviour.
(15) Shouting defamatory or disrespectful slogans or issuing
or distributing pamphlets and hand bills or levelling malicious
or false allegations.
(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.
(30) Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the
Company.
15. The disciplinary authority having considered the findings of
the enquiry officer, recorded that the petitioner failed to maintain devotion
to duty and indulged in gross misconduct of using disrespectful language in
his letters addressed to higher authorities and spreading false rumours about
them. The disciplinary authority also recorded that the petitioner had
misused the internal news portal of ONGC for furthering his personal
os-wp-2033-07
interests threatening the superiors to forward all communications received
by him to the external authorities and had continued making confidential
matters public through the internet and e-mails. The e-mails and letters
uploaded on the internet by the petitioner do not leave any manner of doubt
to hold that the disciplinary authority was justified in concurring with the
findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges leveled
against the petitioner were duly proved. There was no other evidence that
was required to be adduced by the management in support of both the
charge-sheets and the comments uploaded by the petitioner on the internet /
e-mail or the Feedback Forum spoke for themselves and there was no
manner of doubt that the petitioner behaved as if he had lost his balance
while making reckless and slanderous allegations. In his comments dated
6/4/2005, he, inter alia, alleged,
"....illegitimate, unfair and discriminatory emotional assaults
by C&MD, Directors, Key Officers and other senior officers on
ONGCians are also criminal in nature, by way of failing to
establish quasi-judicial system of administration of justice;
right to information; neglect of representations and write ups of
officers; unfair overruling of seniority, discrimination and
os-wp-2033-07
illegitimate non-defining of posts postings, job assignments,
organograms, ACRs, etc. , leading to abuse and misuse of
powers as well as unfair promotions and transfer etc."
The petitioner was holding the responsible post of
Superintending Engineer (Electronics and Telecom) and certainly his
behaviour was unbecoming of an officer of E4 level.
16.
In the case of K. K. Dhawan (Supra) a three Judge Bench of
the Supreme Court held that a disciplinary action can be taken in the
following cases against an officer:
"(a) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect
on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty;
(b) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or
misconduct in the discharge of his duty;
(c) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a
Government servant; .........."
In the case of Kuldeep Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court held,
os-wp-2033-07
"It is no doubt true that the High Court under Article 226 or
this Court under Article 32 would not interfere with the
findings recorded at the departmental enquiry by the
disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer as a matter of
course. The Court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and
assume the role of the appellate authority. But this does not
mean that in no circumstance can the Court interfere. The
power of judicial review available to the High Court as also to
this Court under the Constitution takes in its stride the
domestic enquiry as well and it can interfere with the
conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support
the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not
have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings
were perverse or made at the dictates of the superior
authority."
17. It is well settled that the strict rules of evidence are not
applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings and the only requirement of
law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established
os-wp-2033-07
by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably
and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the
charge against the delinquent officer. Mere exercising the jurisdiction of
judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the
departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case of mala fides or
perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a
finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could
have arrived at that finding. The court cannot embark upon reappreciating
the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. In the case
of Union of India vs. H. C. Goel [AIR 1964 SC 364], the Constitution
Bench held,
"The High Court can and must enquire whether there is any
evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other
words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as
true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved
against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the
evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine
whether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows
or not."
os-wp-2033-07
In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC
749], the Supreme Court held,
"18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the
disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being
fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the
evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with
the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the
magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal,
while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally
substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other
penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or
the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High
Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either
directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the
penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in
exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with
cogent reasons in support thereof."
os-wp-2033-07
In the case of DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu [(2003) 4 SCC 331], the
Supreme Court reiterated the legal position about the High Court's power to
cause interference in the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority in the following words:
"6...... Normally, the punishment by a disciplinary authority should
not be disturbed by the High Court or a tribunal except in
appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the
punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after
examining all the relevant factors including the nature of charges
proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature
of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness,
exactness expected of and discipline required to be maintained, and
the department/ establishment in which the delinquent person
concerned works."
18. In the instant case, we have noted that in addition to the serious
charges leveled against the petitioner amounting to gross misconduct on his part,
his behaviour, pre and post charge-sheet period, would itself manifest a serious
os-wp-2033-07
concern even to outsiders and more particularly keeping in mind the post he
holds i.e. Superintending Engineer (E & T) with ONGC. We have noted the
chain of litigation he has drawn the ONGC into before this court. Despite the
fact that on 17/1/2006, while disposing off Writ Petition No. 1636 of 2005, this
court did not accept any of his contentions so as to give directions for promotion
from 1/1/1998, he consistently went on writing to the higher authorities that the
whole issue was subjudice before this court. He was not participating in the
enquiry nor was he responding to the notices and, therefore, this court in the
order dated 17/1/2006 noted that he would cooperate with the enquiry officer so
as to enable him to complete the same at the earliest and only after this remand,
he appeared before the Enquiry Officer. He was using the petitions filed before
this court as a weapon to browbeat the higher authorities as is clear from the
various letters he has uploaded on the e-mails and which record is placed before
us. It is no doubt true that some of the employees on the Feedback Forum have
raised their grievances regarding transfers etc., but while doing so they refrained
from making any personal allegations against any senior officer. The petitioner,
on the other hand, had crossed all limits of organizational discipline and,
therefore, the decision arrived at by the disciplinary authority that he was unfit
to be continued in service, in our opinion, cannot be said to be perverse or
unwarranted or by way of victimization or mala fides. By his own behaviour
os-wp-2033-07
within the organization and through several of his communications, the
petitioner proved himself to be unworthy of being retained on the rolls of
ONGC. The appellate authority was, therefore, justified in concurring with the
view taken by the disciplinary authority in awarding the punishment of removal
from service. Hence, no case has been made out to cause interference with the
quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority
and confirmed by the appellate authority, under Article 226 of the Constitution.
19.
In the premises, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
(A.A. SAYED,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)
