Bombay High Court
Abhijeet Velapure vs The Union Of India And Ors on 20 April, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
WRIT PETITION NO. 82 OF 2021
Abhijeet Velapure ....Petitioner
...Vs...
The Union of India and others ....Respondents.
Mr. Vinay V. Nair for the Petitioner.
Mr. D.P. Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. J.P. Cama, Sr.Advocate a/w Mr. R.S.Pai, Mr. Anand R. Pai, Mr.
Kaushal Udeshi and Mr. Vedant Chajjed, Advocates i/by M/s.
Sanjay Udesh and Co.for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr. Saurabh Khirsagar, Advocate i/by Mr. Hiten S. Venegavkar for
respondent No.7-CBI.
Mr. V.B. Konde Deshmukh, APP for respondent No.8-State.
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 01.04.2021.
PRONOUNCED ON: 20.04.2021.
JUDGMENT (Per : Manish Pitale, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought
diverse reliefs including challenge to order terminating his service
from the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ('BPCL'). The other
reliefs pertain to alleged corruption in the functioning of the BPCL
KHUNTE
2/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
and a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) i.e.
respondent No.7 to investigate the allegations levelled by the
petitioner. The petitioner claims that he is apprehending danger
to his safety and therefore, this Court may direct the respondent
No.6-Director General of Police, Maharashtra, to provide adequate
Police protection to him. Apart from this, the petitioner has
claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- from
concerned employees of BPCL, who had allegedly lobbied against
him while he was working in the said organization.
2. Upon issuance of notice, the BPCL entered
appearance through counsel, the respondent No.1-Union of India,
the respondent No.7-CBI and the respondent No.8-State of
Maharashtra also entered appearance through counsel. Since the
respondent Nos.2 and 3, being senior officers of the BPCL, are the
main contesting respondents in this writ petition, arguments
opposing the present writ petition were principally advanced by
the learned counsel appearing for the said respondent Nos.2 and
3.
KHUNTE
3/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he joined
as a Graduate Engineering Trainee on 26/06/2013 with the BPCL
and that after completion of probation, his appointment with the
BPCL was confirmed on 01/07/2014. Thereafter, the petitioner
has given details of his postings with the BPCL. According to the
petitioner, when he was transferred to the Retail Division of the
BPCL and posted as Maintenance Officer in depots of the BPCL at
Miraj and Sangli in Maharashtra, he came across details as to the
manner in which there was widespread corruption in the function-
ing of the BPCL. On this basis, the petitioner has made statements
regarding the alleged corruption in distribution of petroleum
products at the BPCL. The petitioner has then stated how he was
harassed by senior officers of the BPCL by depriving him of leave
that was rightfully due to him and for other such reasons. The pe-
titioner has then stated how a departmental enquiry was initiated
against him on three charges pertaining to alleged fraudulent
medical bills raised by him, while claiming reimbursement for
medical treatment of his father. It is brought to the notice of this
Court that the enquiry initiated against him resulted in a report
holding him guilty of all the three charges, leading to issuance of
order dated 30/10/2020, terminating his service.
KHUNTE
4/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
4. The petitioner stated that he was in fact playing the role of
a whistle blower and that under the policy of the BPCL pertaining
to protection to be afforded to such whistle blowers, he ought not
to have been harassed and there was no basis for terminating his
service on frivolous charges. The petitioner has also placed on
record the Statutory Rules pertaining to the manner in which do-
mestic enquiry is to be conducted in the BPCL and it is stated that
there is a remedy of appeal available to an aggrieved employee
who has been visited with major or minor penalty.
5. Mr. Vinay V. Nayar, learned counsel appearing for the peti-
tioner made submissions in tune with the facts stated and the
grounds raised in the petition. He vehemently submitted that the
petitioner was victimized by the respondents, particularly the se-
nior officers of the BPCL, as the petitioner had dared to raise the
issue of corruption in the functioning of the BPCL. He submitted
that the petitioner was harassed on small issues after he became
aware about the said corruption when he was posted at the Retail
Depots as Maintenance Officer. Insofar as the initiation of depart-
mental enquiry was concerned, the learned counsel submitted that
KHUNTE
5/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
the alleged fake bills submitted for reimbursement were due to a
person that his father had engaged for buying medicines and as-
sisting him. It was submitted that an affidavit of that person was
also on record to show that such fake bills were raised by him in
order to dupe the petitioner's father and that therefore, there was
no question of any fraud or theft committed by the petitioner ne-
cessitating departmental action against him. It was submitted that
the material brought on record demonstrated that the findings
rendered in the enquiry report were not sustainable and that
therefore, the order of termination of service deserved to be set
aside.
6. As regards the availability of the alternative remedy of ap-
peal under the concerned Rules, the learned counsel for the peti-
tioner submitted that it was not an absolute bar and that this
Court in writ jurisdiction could consider the issues raised by the
petitioner. It was submitted that when the petitioner had made al-
legations of corruption against senior officers of the BPCL, he had
no faith that the Appellate Authority would give him justice. It
was further submitted that in a similar case concerning dismissal
from service of an employee of the BPCL, in the case of Anil Pan-
KHUNTE
6/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
degaonkar v. BPCL and others, reported in 2004 (2) MP LJ 15, the
Madhya Pradesh High Court had entertained a writ petition,
granting relief to the aggrieved person, thereby showing that the
present writ petition could not be thrown out on the ground of ju-
risdiction.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that sufficient details were stated in the writ petition to indicate
the magnitude of corruption in the functioning of the BPCL, which
mandated a detailed enquiry by the CBI, so that the responsible
officers and employees of the BPCL could be brought to book. Ac-
cording to the learned counsel for the petitioner, serious issues of
corruption pertaining to BPCL raised in this petition were relevant
in the context of other such public sector Corporations also and
that therefore, this Court ought to entertain the present writ peti-
tion and to allow the same in the interest of justice.
8. On the other hand, Mr. J.P. Cama, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, submitted at the outset
that the present writ petition deserved to be dismissed on the
ground of maintainability itself. It was vehemently submitted that
KHUNTE
7/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal was available for
the petitioner, the present writ petition could not be entertained
by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was
emphasized that the writ Court could not entertain the petition
and sit in appeal over factual findings rendered by the enquiry of-
ficer in the report and that the present case did not fall in the nar-
row compass wherein writ petitions can be entertained even in
such matters. It was submitted that the petitioner had neither
pleaded nor argued any procedural infirmity in the manner in
which the enquiry was conducted. There was no allegation of vio-
lation of principles of natural justice or that the authority which
initiated the enquiry and conducted the same did not have juris-
diction to do so. On this basis, it was submitted that the present
writ petition did not deserve to be entertained. Much emphasis
was placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam
S. Karmachari Sangh, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 268 and State
Bank of India and others v. Narendra Kumar Pandey, reported in
(2013) 2 SCC 740.
KHUNTE
8/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
9. Insofar as the allegations of corruption in BPCL were con-
cerned, the learned Senior Advocate invited attention of this Court
to the contents of the writ petition and pointed out that the state-
ments made in the facts and the grounds raised in the writ peti-
tion pertaining to alleged corruption were general in nature, with-
out any specifics and none of the officers, who had allegedly in-
dulged in corruption were named in the writ petition. It was sub-
mitted that a number of technical words were used in the writ pe-
tition to claim that when the petitioner was appointed as Mainte-
nance Officer in the Retail Depot of the BPCL, he had allegedly
unearthed large-scale corruption. It was submitted that in the ab-
sence of specific details, such vague allegations could not be enter-
tained by this Court, particularly when the petitioner is an inter-
ested party, inasmuch as he is an aggrieved former employee, who
has been removed from the service of the BPCL. It was submitted
that merely because the petitioner claimed that he had no faith in
the senior officers, he could not claim that there was large scale
corruption in the BPCL and that therefore, an investigation was
mandated at the hands of the CBI. The learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 sought dismissal of the
writ petition.
KHUNTE
9/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
10. The learned counsel appearing for the other respondents
supported the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent
Nos.2 and 3.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and
perused the material on record. There are two aspects that arise
in the present writ petition. Firstly, the grievance raised by the pe-
titioner pertaining to termination of his service and secondly, the
allegations of corruption in the BPCL, seeking investigation from
the CBI.
12. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, the objection per-
taining to the maintainability of the present writ petition needs to
be dealt with. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the re-
spondent Nos.2 and 3 has contended that this Court could have
entertained the writ petition only if the petitioner had come with a
case that there were glaring procedural infirmities in the manner
in which the enquiry was conducted or that there was violation of
principles of natural justice. He further submitted that if the
charge-sheet itself had been issued by an Authority, which has no
KHUNTE
10/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
jurisdiction to do so, the writ petition could certainly have been
entertained. In the absence of such grounds raised by the peti-
tioner, the present writ petition cannot be entertained, in the face
of availability of an alternative remedy of statutory appeal against
the order of termination of service.
13. Since the petitioner has placed much emphasis on the
judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Anil
Pandegaonkar v. BPCL (supra), we propose to deal with the same.
A perusal of the said judgment would show that the High Court
did entertain the writ petition filed by an aggrieved employee of
the BPCL, who had been dismissed from service. But, a perusal of
the facts of the said case and the ground on which the writ peti-
tion was ultimately allowed, would show that the High Court
found that the Authority which issued the charge-sheet to the ag-
grieved employee was not competent to issue such a charge-sheet.
It was found that the initiation of proceedings against the ag-
grieved employee was itself contrary to the provisions of the rele-
vant Rules and therefore, the order of dismissal deserved interfer-
ence. The said facts clearly show that the High Court entertained
the writ petition on the basis that the initiation of the enquiry and
KHUNTE
11/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
consequent issuance of charge-sheet, as also the order of dismissal
from service, were all without jurisdiction. This shows that the
aforesaid case before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh did fall
into the narrow compass in which a writ Court can entertain a pe-
tition despite availability of a statutory remedy of appeal in service
matters. There was clearly a fundamental procedural infirmity in
the said proceedings, due to which the High Court entertained the
writ petition of the aggrieved employee.
14. In the present case, there is nothing brought to the notice
of this Court by the petitioner to show that there was any proce-
dural infirmity in the manner in which the enquiry was initiated,
charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and order of termination
of service was passed, consequent to the petitioner being found
guilty of the three charges levelled against him. There is nothing
to show that the proceedings were either hit by any procedural in-
firmity, jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural jus-
tice. In such a situation, when admittedly there is an alternative
remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, the present writ peti-
tion cannot to be entertained, to examine the challenge to the or-
der of termination of service.
KHUNTE
12/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
15. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 is justified in relying upon the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of U.P. State Bridge Corpora-
tion Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karmachari Sangh and State
Bank of India and others v. Narendra Kumar Pandey (supra). In
fact, in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Narendra Ku-
mar Pandegaonkar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows:
"25. The High Court, in our view, under Article
226 of the Constitution of India was not justified in in-
terfering with the order of dismissal passed by the ap-
pointing authority after a full-fledged inquiry, especially
when the Service Rules provide for an alternative rem-
edy of appeal. It is a well-acceptable principle of law
that the High Court while exercising powers under Arti-
cle 226 of the Constitution does not act as an appellate
authority. Of course, its jurisdiction is circumscribed and
confined to correct an error of law or procedural error,
if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or vio-
lation of the principles of natural justice. In SBI v.
Ramesh Dinkar Punde5, this Court held that the High
Court cannot reappreciate the evidence acting as a court
of Appeal. We have, on facts, found that no procedural
irregularity has been committed either by the Bank, pre-
senting officer or the Inquiring Authority. Disciplinary
proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with
the Service Rules."
16. In the present case, when specific query was put to the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to whether a statu-
KHUNTE
13/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
tory appeal under the relevant Rules was available to the peti-
tioner, the learned counsel answered in the affirmative. But, he
merely stated that since the petitioner did not have faith that the
Appellate Authority would do justice to him, in view of allegations
of corruption made by him against the officers of the BPCL, he had
directly approached this Court invoking writ jurisdiction. We are
unable to persuade ourselves to accept the aforesaid submission
made on behalf of the petitioner. As stated in the above quoted
portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court
while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India cannot act as an appellate authority. It would not be desir-
ble in writ jurisdiction to enter into the factual findings rendered
upon an appreciation of evidence and material on record by the
enquiry officer, particularly when a statutory remedy of appeal is
admittedly available to the petitioner to air his grievances.
17. Therefore, we hold that the writ petition seeking to chal-
lenge the order of termination of service of the petitioner is not
maintainable before this Court and accordingly, the prayers made
in that context in the present writ petition cannot be granted.
KHUNTE
14/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
18. Insofar as the second issue of the alleged corruption in the
BPCL is concerned, a perusal of the writ petition would show that
according to the petitioner, he became aware about such alleged
large-scale corruption when he was posted as Maintenance Officer
at Retail Depot of the BPCL. In the writ petition certain state-
ments have been made as to the manner in which the petroleum
products are transported and distributed. In that context, it is
stated that there is large scale pilferage and corruption, which
needs to be remedied. But, the statements made in the writ peti-
tion lack specifics and generalized statements have been made to
claim that number of officers of the BPCL are involved in the al-
leged corruption. It is on the basis of such statements that the pe-
titioner has specifically sought a direction to the respondent Nos.4
to 7 to take custody of documents allegedly of evidentiary value
pertaining to the past three years at depots of the BPCL. The peti-
tioner has then prayed for a direction to the CBI to conduct inves-
tigation in the matter.
19. We are of the opinion, that the directions sought by the pe-
titioner are farfetched and the petitioner has failed to place on
KHUNTE
15/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
record any substratum for seeking such reliefs. A direction for in-
vestigation to be conducted by the CBI can be pursuant to infor-
mation placed before competent authority under the criminal jus-
tice system whereby cognizable offences are prima facie disclosed.
In the absence of any such exercise, the petitioner is not justified
in rushing to file the present writ petition, styled as a criminal writ
petition, against the senior officers of the BPCL to seek directions
for initiation of investigation by the CBI. The petitioner would al-
ways be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with
law, if there is information available with him which discloses cog-
nizable offences having been committed requiring investigation.
20. Insofar as prayer for grant of Police protection is con-
cerned, the petitioner could certainly take appropriate steps in ac-
cordance with law, but, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, we are unable to appreciate the contentions raised
on behalf of the petitioner in that regard.
21. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is no
merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
KHUNTE
16/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
22. Needless to say, the petitioner would be at liberty to air his
grievance pertaining to termination of his service by filing an ap-
propriate appeal in terms of the Statutory Rules, despite dismissal
of the present writ petition. If such an appeal is filed by the peti-
tioner, it shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with
law. Similarly, the petitioner may be at liberty to approach compe-
tent authority, as permissible in law, under the provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, if he has material and information
which discloses commission of cognizable offences in the function-
ing of the BPCL or any of its officers. He would also be at liberty
to make an appropriate representation before the respondent No.1
i.e. Union of India through the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, New Delhi, to place on record any material that he deems ap-
propriate to show how the functioning of the BPCL needs to
improve. We refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion about
availability of such remedy or contentions raised by the petitioner
in this petition about alleged corruption.
23. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observa-
tions. The observations made hereinabove are prima facie in na-
KHUNTE
17/17 CRWP82.21.doc-Order
ture and confined to the adjudication of present Writ Petition and
the same shall not be construed as an impediment to avail of an
alternate remedy as is available in law or to entertain such pro-
ceedings if initiated in future by the petitioner on merits. initiated
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
KHUNTE
