Kerala High Court
M.S.Raveendranathan vs Indian Oil Corporation on 17 June, 2025
WA NO. 1858/2023 1
2025:KER:42674
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO.1858 OF 2023
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2023 IN
WP(C) NO.26473/2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
M.S.RAVEENDRANATHAN
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.P.N.SUKUMARAN, UDAYA VIHAR,
BARCLAY VILLAS, PWRA 38, CHEMBUMUKKU,
KAKKANAD P.O., COCHIN, PIN - 682030
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANU GOVIND
SRI.RAHUL SURENDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI, PIN - 400051
2 THE DIRECTOR (MARKETING)
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
MARKETING DIVISION, HEAD OFFICE,
BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI, PIN - 400051
3 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (OPERATIONS)
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, INDIAN OIL
BHAVAN, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI, PIN - 400051
WA NO. 1858/2023 2
2025:KER:42674
4 THE GENERAL MANAGER
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, OFFICE AT
PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN - 682036
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.RAJA KANNAN
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.), R1 TO R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1858/2023 3
2025:KER:42674
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
08.06.2023 in Writ Petition No.26473 of 2012 of the learned Single
Judge. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P.(C). Respondents
were the respondents therein.
2. The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant inter alia
seeking to quash Exts.P3, P4, P5 and P7 which are the enquiry
report, order of dismissal, order of rejection of appeal and order
rejecting the Review Petition respectively, issued as part of the
disciplinary proceedings conducted against the appellant.
3. The learned Single Judge, had vide the impugned
judgment dismissed the Writ Petition holding that there was no
cause or reason to interfere with the findings of the Disciplinary
Authority as well as the Appellate Authority.
4. The appellant, while working as Assistant Manager in
the Cochin terminal of the 1strespondent Oil Company, faced
2025:KER:42674
disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 charge sheet dated
05.10.2009. The allegation against the appellant was that while he
was engaged in duty to supervise the filling operations of trucks
and transporting diesel, he had caused loss to the Corporation by
filling of excess quantity in the truck regularly. Appellant had denied
the charges, and an enquiry followed. The report of the enquiry
officer was against the appellant, and the Disciplinary Authority
accepted the enquiry report and imposed a penalty of dismissal
from service upon the appellant. The said order of dismissal was
confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Though a Review Petition
was filed by him, no action was taken thereon, and the appellant
preferred a Writ Petition before this Court. Pursuant to the
judgment therein, the 2nd respondent was directed to pass orders
on the Review Petition. Thereafter, an order was passed in the
review petition dismissing the same. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellant had filed the Writ Petition, the judgment wherein is
impugned in this Writ Appeal.
5. Heard Sri.Manu Govind, Advocate, for the appellant
and Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2025:KER:42674
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the W.P.(C),
overlooking the fact that the management had failed to adduce
proper evidence to establish that the appellant was guilty of
indulging in malpractices for pecuniary gain. Management had
failed to even raise a contention regarding any pecuniary gain and
failed to provide any evidence to establish the same. Evidence had
not been led to show that the incident alleged was not an
isolated instance caused due to the fault/ malfunctioning of the
automation unit at the filling station. The learned Single Judge
ought to have appreciated that mere establishing of tampering with
records would not prove the allegations raised against the
appellant. That the appellant had carried out the same with
malafide/nefarious intentions for pecuniary gains should also have
been established.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the learned Single Judge had correctly dismissed
the Writ Petition and had validly concluded that the cumulative
effects of the findings of the enquiry officer reveal the guilt of the
2025:KER:42674
appellant and that the enquiry officer had in Ext.P3 report
unequivocally noted that the appellant had tampered with the
record three times in July 2009 and four times during August 2009.
8. We have heard both sides in detail and have
considered the contentions put forth. It is noted that the misconduct
committed by the appellant had been proved in a properly carried
out domestic enquiry and the contention of the appellant that he
had not done anything prejudicial to the interest of the respondent
Corporation had been found to be incorrect. It is further noted that
the appellant himself had admitted the charges and had sought an
apology from the respondents, and that the original order, the order
of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the reviewing
authority, had been passed validly and in accordance with law. This
Court cannot interfere with the result of a disciplinary proceeding
unless it is found to be illogical or suffers from procedural
impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the
sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. To put it
differently, unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the
2025:KER:42674
court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference [See Union of
India and another v. K.G.Soni [(2006) 6 SCC 794]]. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Man
Mohan Nath Sinha and another [(2009) 8 SCC 310] has settled
the law by succinctly laying down as follows:
"15. The legal position is well settled that the
power of judicial review is not directed against the
decision but is confined to the decision-making
process. The court does not sit in judgment on
merits of the decision. It is not open to the High
Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence
led before the inquiry officer and examine the
findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of
appeal and reach its own conclusions. In the instant
case, the High Court fell into grave error in
scanning the evidence as if it was a court of appeal.
The approach of the High Court in consideration of
the matter suffers from manifest error and, in our
thoughtful consideration, the matter requires fresh
consideration by the High Court in accordance with
law. On this short ground, we send the matter back
to the High Court."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in State of Rajasthan and others
v. Bhupendra Singh [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908] referred to the
above proposition with approval. Thus the law is trite and settled
that as regards the power of the High Court to reappraise the facts,
though it cannot be said that the same is completely impermissible
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, there must be a
2025:KER:42674
level of infirmity greater than ordinary in a Tribunal's order, to justify
interference.
9. Nothing has been produced by the appellant in the
proceedings to substantiate his contention that he had misjudged
the readings on the calibrated dip and had released the truck in
good faith. The averment that there was no willful omission or
deliberate attempt to make pecuniary gain etc., had also not been
substantiated in the proceedings that ultimately led to his dismissal.
The learned Single Judge had after a detailed consideration of the
contentions put forth relied on the valid precedents on the point and
had rightly concluded that the scope of interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India in a disciplinary matter until unless
the punishment of dismissal is found to be strikingly
disproportionate, the same cannot be interfered with. The learned
Single Judge had rightly concluded that the courts, while dealing
with such matters, should be circumspect in exercising jurisdiction
until and unless the disciplinary proceedings are actuated out of no
evidence. Nothing has been produced before us to show that the
conclusions so arrived at by the learned Single Judge are
2025:KER:42674
erroneous and legally unsustainable. We hence find no reason to
interfere with the said findings in the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
2025:KER:42674
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 REPLY TO THE CHARGE MEMO, SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 14.05.2010
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF
PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER REJECTING THE APPEAL
OF PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) 12989/2012
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DISMISSING REVIEW
PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit R1a NOTICE DATED 27.08.2010 ISSUED BY THE
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
Exhibit R1b TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
08.09.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P8 A COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
KESO/LPG/272(A)/43/RTI/2644, DATED
0.05.2018, ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 A COPY OF THE RTI APPEAL DATED
22.05.2018
Exhibit P9(a) A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.06.2018,
ISSUED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER &
1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT CORPORATION
Exhibit P10 A COPY OF THE SAID COMMUNICATION DATED
06.09.2018 ALONG WITH ITS RETYPED COPY
