C.D. Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
2011 Latest Caselaw 857 Del

*         HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005


%                                 Judgment decided on: 14.02.2011

C.D. SINGH                                         ......Petitioner
                        Through: Mr Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate.

                        Versus


INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.                    .....Respondent
                  Through: Mr Rajat Arora, Advocate

Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                    No

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                 Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported
   in the Digest?                                     Yes

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the

service record of the petitioner for the period of 1966 to 1968

resulting in denial of suitable time scale to the petitioner and to

issue direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner the grade

and pay scale from the date his juniors were promoted to that

scale of pay w.e.f. 30.12.1970 and thereafter.

2. The facts of the case are that in the year 1969 the

petitioner was illegally removed from service by the respondent

and against this action of the respondent the petitioner filed a

complaint being case B.S.E. Case No. 23 of 1969 before the Labour

Court, Ranchi, under section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and

Establishment Act, 1956. The Labour Court by its order dated

26.09.1973 set aside the dismissal of the petitioner and directed

reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages and all the

other benefits.

3. The respondent filed Special Leave Petition No. 131 of

1974 against the aforesaid order of the Labour Court. The

Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition of the

respondent in limine.

4. According to the petitioner, inspite of the order of the

Labour Court directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner

with all the benefits, the petitioner was neither given his due

seniority nor the proper scale of pay. As per the petitioner during

the period of his dismissal from service, i.e., from 03.09.1969 to

03.05.1974 some Sales Officers who were junior to him were

promoted to higher grades in the pay scale of Rs.1025/- to

Rs.1625/-. The dispute regarding this matter was referred to the

Patna High Court which was partly quashed for not being properly

worded. Therefore, another reference bearing No.14 of 1980 was

made by the State Government to Labour Court, Patna.

5. The Labour Court passed the award dated 11.03.1983 in

favour of the petitioner and held as follows:

"In the gist of my foregoing discussion and findings, I hold that C.D. Singh could be allowed the pay scale of Rs.1025-1625 from the date his juniors were promoted to that scale of pay, i.e. w.e.f. 30 th December, 1970. I further hold that he should be promoted from Grade „B‟ to Grade „C‟ and should also be given the benefit of revision in the pay scale of those grades."

6. The respondent filed a Special Leave petition against the

said award which was also dismissed at the limine. Thereafter the

respondent filed writ petition No. 5877 of 1983 before the High

Court of Patna. The Indian Oil Corporation Employees Union also

filed writ petition challenging certain portions of the award which

was registered as CWJC No. 4377 of 1984. Both these writ petitions

were dismissed by the judgement dated 24.01.1985 as the prior

dismissal of the Special Leave Petition on similar issue by the

Supreme Court could not be overlooked and it operated as a bar to

the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court.

7. The respondent file an appeal before the Supreme Court

against the judgement dated 24.01.1985 and the Supreme Court

allowed the said appeal holding that the dismissal of a Special

Leave Petition by the Supreme Court by a non-speaking order did

not operate as a bar against the appellant in the matter of

challenging the impugned award of the Labour Court by resort to

proceedings before the High Court. Thus the aforesaid writ petition

No. 5877 of 1983 was remanded back with a direction to dispose

the said writ petition on merits. The High Court of Patna allowed

the application of the respondent and set aside the order of the

Labour Court dated 11.03.1983 through its common judgement

dated 30.03.1988 but directed the present respondent to consider

the case of the petitioner for promotion to the higher scale of pay

of Rs.1025-1625/- on the basis of his service records for the period

during which he became entitled for promotion.

8. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Special leave petition

against the judgement dated 30.03.1988. In the counter affidavit

filed by the respondent in the said Special Leave petition, it was

stated that consequent to the above order of the High Court, the

respondent had formed a committee consisting of two General

Managers and Financial Controller to consider the case of the

petitioner but after examining the annual performance, appraisals

and service record of the petitioner three years prior to his

dismissal and for the year when he rejoined the service on

03.05.1974 the said committee came to the conclusion that the

petitioner was not suitable for promotion. The said finding of the

committee was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated

07.10.1988.

9. Denial of higher grade to the petitioner on the basis of

the committee‟s finding was challenged before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.12375-76/1988 disposed of the

case by order dated 18.01.1989 directing the petitioner to

challenge the said order before the appropriate forum.

10. Pursuant to the order dated 18.01.1989, the petitioner

filed the Writ Petition (C) 2641/1990 before this High Court for

quashing the order dated 07.10.1988 which was disposed of by

order dated 15.09.2004 with the liberty to the petitioner to

challenge the correctness of the service record and to advance his

contention that average and below average remarks amount to a

major penalty.

11. Thus, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

12. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it has

been submitted that the petitioner is seeking the relief for the

cause which had been prayed by him in the earlier writ petition as

well before this Court and it was dismissed. The petitioner now

cannot seek the same remedy from the court again. It has also

been submitted that the petitioner has already superannuated on

31.03.1997 and retirement dues as admissible to him have already

been paid to him. Therefore, he should not be permitted to re-

agitate the correctness of his service records for the period of

1966 to 1968. It has also been submitted that by order dated

15.09.2004, limited liberty was given to the petitioner with regard

to the correctness of the records, thus, the issues which have

already been raised and decided by the earlier writ petitions

cannot be allowed to be raised in the present writ petition.

13. It was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent

that the Patna High Court while disposing of writ petition

No.5877/1983 vide order dated 30.3.1988 had only directed that

the petitioner be given a consideration and the same was given to

him by constituting a committee and considering his Annual

Appraisal Reports, the respondent found that the grading of the

petitioner was such that no persons with similar grading had been

promoted and therefore, the petitioner could not be promoted.

14. It was also argued that promotion is not a vested right

and it is only a right of the petitioner that he be considered for

promotion which has been done in the present case. The

petitioner has been given a reasonable and fair consideration by

the respondent corporation. In support of his arguments, the

learned counsel for the respondent referred to the following

judgments:

1. Union of India v. K.V. Vijeesh: AIR 1996 SC 3031.

2. Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India: AIR 1991 SC 1612.

3. Ashish Mohan v. Union of India: (2002) 7 AD (Delhi) 488 (DB).

15. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim promotion as his right.

His right was only to be considered for the promotion and the

same has been done. Now, there is no issue left to be settled.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the

statement before this Court that in the present writ petition, the

petitioner confines his relief to the extend of challenging the

correctness of the service record as directed by this Court in

earlier Writ Petition (C) No. 2641/1990 disposed of by order dated

15.9.2004. He admits that petitioner is not claiming any other

relief except mentioned in the said order.

17. It is also argued by the petitioner that it was incorrect on

the part of the respondent to compare the petitioner‟s records with

that of his junior as the present is a case of reinstatement and not

of regular promotion. The submission of the petitioner, no doubt,

is fortified with the order passed by the Patna High Court where

specific directions were passed to examine the petitioner on the

basis of petitioner‟s service records for which the petitioner was

entitled as per finding of the Labour Court.

18. The petitioner has challenged the committee‟s finding,

by which the petitioner was denied the grade, mainly on two

grounds:-

a. That withholding of grade is a punishment under

service Rule No.29 of Indian Oil Corporation (Discipline

and Appeal) Rules and the said finding passed was also

in violation of Supreme Court‟s order upholding the

petitioner‟s reinstatement with all the benefits.

According to the petitioner, withholding of grade is a

major punishment and under Rule 29 of Indian Oil

Corporation (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, no enquiry

was held to impose this punishment on the petitioner.

b. Further, the case of the petitioner is that no adverse

remark as mentioned in the committee report

submitted by the respondent regarding the petitioner‟s

service was ever communicated to the petitioner.

It is challenged by the petitioner that the committee

ought to have considered records prior to 1970, that is, from 1964

to 1969, but, the respondent considered the records for the years

1966, 1967, 1968 and 1974-1976 and left out the records for the

years 1964, 1965 and 1969.

19. In support of his submission on this aspect, the learned

counsel for the petitioner has referred to para 22 of the judgment

delivered by Patna High Court dated 30.3.1988 wherein the

following direction was given:

"22. The result is that this application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. However in view of the findings that C.D. Singh has the right for being considered for promotion to the next higher scale of pay with effect from 30.12.1970. I direct the petitioner Corporation to consider his case for promotion to the higher scale of pay of Rs.1025-1625/- on the basis of his service records for the period during which he became entitled for such promotion. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the parties shall bear their own costs.

20. It is submitted by the petitioner that the said judgment

dated 30.03.1988 passed by the Patna High Court referred to the

placement of the petitioner in Grade „B‟ as on 30.12.1970, the day

when his immediate juniors were put in Grade „B‟ and that the said

placement in Grade „B‟ was to be done on the basis of his service

records. This meant that the petitioner‟s case was required to be

considered based only on his service record. There was no scope

for comparing his case with others, which has erroneously been

done by the respondent resulting in the loss of invaluable 11

years.

21. Learned counsel for the respondent has not denied the

fact that for imposing major penalty under Rule 29 of the Conduct,

Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 of the respondent, the

procedure as prescribed under Rule 31 of the Conduct, Discipline

and Appeal Rules, 1980 for holding enquiry was not followed.

22. The relevant Rules 29 and 31 are as under:

29. Penalties:

The following penalties may be imposed on an employee, as hereinafter provided, for misconduct committed by him or for any other good and sufficient reasons.

Minor Penalties:

(a) ...

(b) ...

Major Penalties:

(c) Withholding of increment of pay with or without cumulative effect.

(d) Withholding of promotion.

(e) Reduction to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in a time scale.

(f) Removal from service.

(g) Dismissal.

31. Procedure for Imposing Major Penalties:

(1) No order imposing any of the major penalties specified in Rule 29 shall be made except after an enquiry is held in accordance with this rule.

23. In view of the Rules of the respondent i.e. Conduct,

Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980, it is clear that major penalty

under Rule 29 could not be imposed without following the

procedure as prescribed under Rule 31(1) for holding an enquiry.

Admittedly, in the present case no enquiry was held against the

petitioner before imposing the major penalty.

24. As regards the adverse remarks for the years 1966,

1967 and 1968 against the petitioner is concerned, there is a force

in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

respondent could not have acted upon them without first

communicating the same to the petitioner. Since this procedure

was not adopted by the respondent in the present case, therefore,

the same is also in violation of Rule 31 of the Conduct, Discipline

and Appeal Rules, 1980.

25. It is cardinal principle of natural justice that before

imposing an order of punishment upon an employee, the

delinquent employee is required to be put to notice. However, in

this case, the said compliance was not made.

26. In the similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in the

following cases has held as under:

(1). In Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and

others: AIR 1979 SC 1622 held as under:

"17. The principle is well-settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice, an adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, not arising out of any fault on the part of the appellant, though the adverse report was communicated to him, the Government has not been able to consider his explanation and decide whether the report was justified. In these circumstances, it is difficult to support the non- issuance of the integrity certificate to the appellant. The chain of reaction began with the adverse report and the infirmity in the link of causation is that no one has yet decided whether that report was justified. We cannot speculate, in the absence of a proper pleading, whether the appellant was not found suitable otherwise, that is to say, for reasons other than those connected with the non-issuance of an integrity certificate to him.

18. We may also indicate, since the High Court saw the file and discovered that the appellant was not brought on the Select List because he was "not found suitable otherwise", that regulation 5 which deals with the preparation of a list of suitable officers provides by clause 7 that "if in the process of selection, review or revision it is proposed to supersede any member of the State Civil Service, the Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession". While dealing with an identical provision in clause 5 of regulation 5 of the same Regulations as they stood then, this Court observed in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor; (1974) 1 SCR 797 that "rubberstamp" reasons given for the supersession of each officer to the effect that the record of the officer concerned was not such as to justify his appointment "at this stage in preference to those selected", do not amount to "reasons for the proposed supersession" within the meaning of clause

5. "Reasons", according to Beg J. (with whom Mathew J. concurred) "are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions". The Court accordingly held that the mandatory provisions of regulation 5(5) were not complied with by the Selection Committee. That an officer was "not found suitable" is the conclusion and not a reason in support of the decision to supersede him. True, that it is not expected that the Selection Committee should give anything approaching the judgment of a Court, but it must at least state, as briefly as it may, why it came to the conclusion that the officer concerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion in the Select List. In the absence of any such reason, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the Selection Committee had another "reason" for not bringing the appellant on the Select List."

(2). In Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors: AIR 2008

SC 2513 held as under:

"9. We do not agree. In our opinion every entry must be communicated to the employee concerned, so that he may have an opportunity of making a representation against it if he is aggrieved.

39. In the present case, we are developing the

principles of natural justice by holding that fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service (except the military), must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation. This is in our opinion is the correct legal position even though there may be no Rule/G.O. requiring communication of the entry, or even if there is a Rule/G.O. prohibiting it, because the principle of non- arbitrariness in State action as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution in our opinion requires such communication. Article 14 will override all rules or government orders.

41. We, however, make it clear that the above directions will not apply to military officers because the position for them is different as clarified by this Court in Union of India vs. Major Bahadur Singh, 2006 (1) SCC

368. But they will apply to employees of statutory authorities, public sector corporations and other instrumentalities of the State (in addition to Government servants)."

(3). In Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India and

others: (2009) 16 SCC 146 held as under:

"7. It is not in dispute that CAT, Patna Bench passed an order recommending the authority not to rely on the order of caution dated 22-9-1997 and the order of adverse remarks dated 9-6-1998. In view of the said order, one obstacle relating to his promotion goes.

8. Coming to the second aspect, that though the benchmark "very good" is required for being considered for promotion, admittedly the entry of "good" was not communicated to him as he was having "very good" in the previous year. In those circumstances, in our opinion, non-communication of entries in the annual confidential report of a public servant whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the armed forces), it has civil consequences because it may affect his chances of promotion or getting other benefits. Hence, such non- communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The same view has been reiterated in the above referred decision (Dev Dutt case, SCC p. 738), para 41) relied on by the appellant. Therefore, the entries "good" if at all granted to the appellant, the same should not have been taken into consideration for being considered for promotion to the higher grade. The respondent has no case that the appellant had ever been informed of the

nature of the grading given to him."

27. The Government of India has issued guidelines on

promotion policy of employees of Public Sector Undertakings

against whom disciplinary proceedings were started, and they

were subsequently exonerated vide O.M. No.39/4/56-Estt.(A) dated

3.11.1958. The para 3 of the said circular reads as follows:

"In case the Government servant is completely exonerated, the due date of his promotion will be determined with reference to position assigned to him in the findings kept in the sealed cover/covers and with reference to the date of promotion of his next junior on the basis of such position."

This is a mandatory provision and this order of

Government of India is binding on the respondent management as

it is „State‟ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Since this policy is being followed in the cases of other

employees in similar situation and if not followed in this case, it will

be discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India.

28. It is also argued by the petitioner that an affidavit has

been filed by Sh. Zahoor Mehadi on behalf of respondent in Writ

Petition (C) No.2641/1990 which is available on the record of this

case and according to para 6(d) of the affidavit, the basic

requirements of the service records are as follows:

(a) Length of service in Grade.

(b) Seniority of the officer in the Grade.

(c) Experience/Potential.

(d) Educational Qualifications.

(e) Clean record of Service.

(f) Performance Rating‟s (APA‟s).

The marks are given on all above mentioned items to

complete the service record. However, in the present case, out of

above six items only one item i.e. APA (Annual Performance

Apprisal) has been considered for assessing the case of the

petitioner as far as granting the promotion on the basis of service

record is concerned.

29. There is no force in the submission of the respondent

that since the petitioner has now been superannuated, thus, no

issue is left to be settled now. It is a matter of fact that the

petitioner was in litigation with the respondent prior to his

retirement and on his very petition for quashing the order dated

7.10.1988, this Court on 15.9.2004 passed directions to challenge

the correctness of the service record for the period 1966 to 1968,

thus, the present petition has been filed and, therefore, it can not

be considered to have become infructuous on the ground of his

retirement.

30. It is a matter of fact that the adverse remark passed was

not communicated to the petitioner which is as per the rules of the

respondent was a major penalty and no enquiry was conducted.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view

that adverse entry in the service record needs to be

communicated.

31. The petitioner is allowed to make the requisite

representation in relation to its upgradation. In case his

representation for upgradation of entry is allowed, as per his

service record, he may get benefit in his pension, medical facilities

and he will also get arrears.

32. The petitioner shall make a representation for

upgradation of his service record for the period from 1966 to 1968

within the period of two months. The respondent is directed to

decide the said representation within two months thereafter. If the

upgradation is allowed, the respondent is directed to give benefit

of higher pension and balance of arrears and to pay the same with

6% p.a. interest.

33. With these observations, this writ petition is allowed. No

costs.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

FEBRUARY 14, 2011 jk/dp