Patna High Court
Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs Smt. Veena Kumari on 7 January, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Chief Justice, Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.495 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2607 of 2019
======================================================
1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited through its Chairman, 3079/3 Sadiq Nagar,
J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Board of Director, Through Establishment Committee, Indian Oil
Corporation Limited, 3079/3 Sadiq Nagar, J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi.
3. Chairman cum Competent Disciplinary Authority, 3079/3 Sadiq Nagar, J.B.
Tito marg, New Delhi.
4. The Director (HR), Indian Oil corporation Limited, 3079/3 Sadiq Nagar, J.B.
Tito Marg, New Delhi.
5. The Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, G9 Ali Yavar
Jung Marg, Bandra East Mumbai.
6. The Executive Director (HR), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, G9 Ali Yavar
Jung Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai
7. The Executive Director, Bihar State Office, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jaiprakash
Bhavan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Smt. Veena Kumari W/o- Sri Shashi Bhushan, R/o- Kunti Villa Appartment,
Ambedkar Path, Bailey Road, P.S.- Rupaspur, Distt- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ankit Katriar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY)
Date :07-01-2025
1. Heard Dr. K.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Ankit Katriar, learned counsel for the appellant-
Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.495 of 2024 dt.07-01-2025
2/17
judgment dated 15.4.2024 whereby the learned Single Judge
was pleased to allow the writ application filed by the writ
petitioner-respondent and quashed the order dated 30.1.2017 of
the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of penalty of
Rs.50,000/ as also the appellate order dated 27.6.2017.
3. The facts in brief are that while the writ petitioner
was working as Deputy Manager (Emp. Relations) in the
Eastern Regional Office of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited
('IOC Ltd.' in short) at Kolkata in the year 2009, the
management of the IOC Ltd. decided to hand over golden
jubilee gold medallions to retired employees on 30.6.2009. The
writ petitioner along with one Abhijit Bag and Sandip Boral
constituted the three member team at counter no.2.
4. After about four years, the writ petitioner was
served with a chargesheet on 26.11.2013 containing three
charges. The first charge was that the writ petitioner while
working as Deputy Manager (Emp. Relations) was the only
officer in the team at counter no.2 and she could not produce
any statement with regard to the number of gold medallions
taken out for distribution from the safe deposit vault and the
number of gold medallions returned to the vault after
completion of distribution from the said counter. Such lapses on
Patna High Court L.P.A No.495 of 2024 dt.07-01-2025
3/17
part of the writ petitioner gave opportunity for misappropriation
of 24 Carat golden jubilee medallions weighing 250 gms worth
Rs.4,56,000/ as on 20.5.2010. The second charge was that the
writ petitioner who was the only officer in the team at counter
no.2 for distribution of the golden jubilee gold medallions, she
did not supervise the activities of the other two employees
namely Abhijit Bag and Sandip Boral. Such lapses contributed
towards the misappropriation of the gold medallions. The third
charge was that lapses on the part of the writ petitioner
contributed towards the misappropriation of the gold medallions
weighing 250 gms worth Rs.4,56,000/ and in this view the writ
petitioner had committed the act of misconduct as per clause
7(5) and 7(9) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980
of the IOC Ltd..
5. The writ petitioner filed her reply and the inquiry
proceeded. In course of the departmental inquiry, on behalf of
the IOC Ltd. seven witnesses were examined and twelve
exhibits marked. On behalf of the writ petitioner, one witness
was examined and seven exhibits marked.
6. On conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the
Inquiry Officer in his report dated 24.12.2015 came to the
conclusion that the charge vide Article no.1 was partially proved
Patna High Court L.P.A No.495 of 2024 dt.07-01-2025
4/17
to the extent that the writ petitioner should have
motivated/convinced her team members to prepare a handing
over/taking over document pertaining to the gold medallions
received from custodian, distributing to eligible retired
employees and returned back to the custodian of gold
medallions. So far as the charge vide Article no.2 and Article
no.3 are concerned, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion
that the same were not proved and not tenable.
7. The writ petitioner was served with a copy of the
inquiry report to which she represented. The disciplinary
authority came out with the final order dated 31.1.2017
imposing penalty of fine of Rs.50,000/ on the writ petitioner. An
appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner which was declined
by order dated 20.7.2017 by the appellate authority upholding
the fine of Rs.50,000/ imposed by the disciplinary authority. The
review preferred by the writ petitioner was also rejected by
order dated 21.9.2017.
8. The writ petitioner challenged the order of penalty
of Rs.50,000/ imposed by the disciplinary authority and upheld
by the appellate order and the order rejecting the review
application by filing CWJC no.2607 of 2019 which was allowed
by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 15.4.2024,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.495 of 2024 dt.07-01-2025
5/17
impugned herein.
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant-IOC Limited contended that the writ petitioner had
been held guilty of being negligent on duty assigned to her on
the ground that she had left the counter mid way and that she
was not prudent enough to maintain statement showing the gold
medallions receipt and returned to the custodian. It was
submitted that the writ petitioner who is an officer grade
personnel is expected to maintain a certain level of discipline to
ensure that she is not deliberately negligent while discharging
her duties. It was submitted that the findings of the Inquiry
Officer cannot be said to be based on no evidence. The learned
Single Judge has erroneously relied upon the two member
committee report over the disciplinary inquiry report. The two
member committee report was also part of the inquiry report and
was considered by the Inquiry Officer. Reliance was placed on
behalf of the appellant on the judgment in the case of B.C.
Chaturvedi vs. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749] to submit
that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review
of the manner in which the decision is made. The Court does not
act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and
the disciplinary authority is the sole Judge of the facts. Further
Patna High Court L.P.A No.495 of 2024 dt.07-01-2025
6/17
reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Union of
Indian vs. P. Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610] to submit that
the High Court under Article 226 is not to re-appreciate the
evidence or go into the adequacy of the same. It was submitted
that the learned Single Judge had committed an error in
allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of punishment
as also appellate order.
10. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant and having perused the material on record, the Court
finds that for distribution of golden jubilee gold medallions to
the retired employees of the IOC Ltd. on 24.10.2009, the writ
petitioner along with Abhijit Bag and Sandip Boral were
deputed at counter no.2. The writ petitioner was served with a
chargesheet on 26.11.2013 containing three article of charges
which were as follows:
"Article 1: Ms. Veena Kumari while
working as Dy. Manager (ER) was though the
only officer in the team which manned
Counter No.2 for distribution of Golden
Jubilee Medallions to retired employees on
24.10.2009
. She could not produce any
statement with regard to the no. of Gold
Medallions taken out for distribution from the
Safe Deposit Vault and the no. of Gold
Medallions returned to the vault after
completion of distribution from the said
counter. Such lapses on the part of Ms
Kumari gave opportunity for
misappropriation of 24 Carat Golden Jubilee
Patna High Court L.P.A No.495 of 2024 dt.07-01-2025
medallions weighing 250 gms worth
Rs.456000/- (based on bullion market value
as on 10.08.2010 @ Rs.18240/- per 10 gm) as
on 20.05.2010.
Article 2: Ms. Veena Kumari was
though the only officer in the team which
distributed Golden Jubilee Gold Medallions
to retired employees from Counter no.2 on
24.10.2009. She did not supervise the
activities of the other two employees namely,
S/Shri Abhijit Bag, Emp. No.32503, the then
Accounts Officer II and Sandip Boral, Emp.
No.21920, the then Accounts Officer II. Such
lapses contributed towards misappropriation
of Golden Jubilee Gold Medallions.
Article 3: The lapses on the part of Ms.
Veena Kumari as mentioned above under
Article 1 to 2 contributed/facilitated towards
misappropriation of Golden Jubilee
Medallions weighing 250 gm worth
Rs.456000/- (based on bullion market value
as on 10.08.2010 @ Rs.18240/- per 10 gm) at
Eastern Regional Office as on 20.05.2010.
Thus the lapses on the part of Ms Veena
Kumari, which contributed towards the above
said pecuniary loss, made her liable for
recovery of whole or part of the loss suffered
by the Corporation.
In view of the above, Ms. Veena Kumari
allegedly committed the following Acts of
misconduct as per clause 7(5) and 7(9) of the
Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980
of the Corporation:
7(5)-Acting in a manner prejudicial to
the interests of the Corporation
7(9)-Neglect of work or negligence in
the performance of duty
Through the above mentioned acts, Ms.
Veena Kumari also failed to maintain
absolute devotion to duty, as required under
sub-clause (b) of Clause No.1 of Rule 6 of
Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980
of the Corporation."
Patna High Court L.P.A No.495 of 2024 dt.07-01-2025
11. The Inquiry Officer in his report dated 24.12.2015
came to the conclusion that the charge vide Article no.1 was
partially proved to the extent that the writ petitioner being the
seniormost employee of the counter no.2 should have
motivated/convinced her team members to prepare a handing
over/taking over document pertaining to the gold medallions
received from the custodian, distributed to the eligible retired
employees and returned back to the custodian of the gold
medallions.
12. It would be important to note here itself that there
were three persons including the writ petitioner who were
posted at counter no.2 namely Abhijit Bag, the then Accounts
Officer and Sandip Boral, also an Accounts Officer. On perusal
of the contents of the Inquiry Report, it transpires that none of
the two other officers posted at counter no.2 were examined as
witness on behalf of the management. Further, the writ
petitioner in her deposition categorically stated that no
directions were received with respect to the role assigned for
different personnel manning the counter no.2 either in written
form or verbally. She did not get any instructions or
authorization from any senior officer to act as supervisor or in-
charge of the said counter. As such, the three of them discharged
Patna High Court L.P.A No.495 of 2024 dt.07-01-2025
their roles at the counter with Abhijit Bag handing over the gold
coins to identified retired employees, Sandip Boral
accounting/reconciliating of the gold coins as he had been
dealing with distribution of the same to other counters also and
the writ petitioner checking the identity of the retired employees
and getting their signatures in the list provided. This Court finds
that none of the statements made by the writ petitioner with
respect to no role having been assigned to them with respect to
manning of counter no.2 has been denied by the respondents.
13. Further so far as the statements of P.W.1 Uttam
Ghosh, Chief Manager (Emp. Relations), Eastern Region and
P.W.4 Mr. Sharif Ul Islam, Chief Law Manager, Odi Sri, a State
Office are concerned, the Inquiry Officer takes note of the fact
that one set of key was always with Abhijit Bag right from the
date of his joining in his current assignment at ER section and
with these keys, he could open the vault independently. In this
view of the matter also, in the opinion of this Court, it was of
utmost important that Abhijit Bag who had the power to operate
the vault independently should have been examined as a witness
to bring home the charges against the writ petitioner.
14. The conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer
with respect to the charge vide Article no.1 also is that the same
Patna High Court L.P.A No.495 of 2024 dt.07-01-2025
is partially proved to the extent that the writ petitioner should
have motivated/convinced her team members to prepare a
handing over/taking over document pertaining to gold
medallions. In this respect it would be important to take note of
the fact that while dealing with and while coming to the
conclusion that the charge brought vide Article no.2 was not
proved against the writ petitioner, the Inquiry Officer observes
that the Presenting Officer could not submit any documentary
evidence to substantiate that the writ petitioner was in-
charge/supervisor of counter no.2. He further observes that
though she could have acted as supervisor of her own but
without any communication from the competent authority she
cannot be termed as supervisor/in-charge of the counter no.2 by
virtue of being an officer and hence he concluded that the
charge brought vide Article no.2 is not proved. Further also,
while dealing with the charge brought vide Article no.3, the
Inquiry Officer observed that there was no evidence of existence
of a fool-proof system of handling and accounting of gold
medallions in Eastern Region during the period under
consideration. It states that in the inquiry proceedings it has
come out from the witnesses and exhibits that there were no
briefing and guidelines issued to the personnel who manned the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.495 of 2024 dt.07-01-2025
various counters. The Inquiry Officer concluded that due to non-
existence of any structured formula/circular with respect to
collection, handling/return of gold medallions from the
custodian, neither the employee concerned attached significance
on the implication of not preparing statement after completion
of distribution nor were they instructed to prepare the same. The
Inquiry Officer held that the charge vide Article no.3 was also
not tenable.
15. It would also be relevant to take note of the fact
that prior to initiation of the departmental proceeding, the matter
was inquired into by a two man committee which found the
following:
"I. Gold Medallions for Long Service
Award and Superannuation Award are
issued to employees by Shri Abhijit Bag and
record keeping of the same in the issue
register is also being done by Shri Bag, as
stated by him.
II. Some Issue registers are available
with Shri Abhijit Bag as well as with Shri
P.K. Ray.
III. Correspondence files are
available with Shri P.K. Ray.
IV. Receiving of Gold Medallions is
being done by Shri P.K. Ray and its safe
keeping is done by Shri Abhijit Bag, as
stated by Shri P. K. Ray.
V. Gold Medallions for Golden
Jubilee Celebration were received by Shri
P.K. Ray and were kept in the Godrej Safe.
Issue documents for existing employees are
available with Shri P.K. Ray and for retired
Patna High Court L.P.A No.495 of 2024 dt.07-01-2025
employees with Shri Pallab Ghosh, AM
(ER)."
16. Having perused the contents of the inquiry report
and the material considered therein this Court comes to the
conclusion that in absence of the examination of the other two
employees namely Abhijit Bag and Sandip Boral who were
assigned to counter no.2 along with the writ petitioner as also
the Inquiry Officer having come to the conclusion that the
charges brought out vide Article nos.2 and 3 not having been
proved and not being tenable against the writ petitioner, this was
a case of no evidence. The learned Single Judge in the judgment
impugned rightly interfered with the order of penalty imposed
by the disciplinary authority as also the appellate order
upholding the order of penalty.
17. So far as the judgment relied on by learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant-IOC Ltd. in the case of
B.C. Chaturvedi (supra), the Court has no dispute with respect
to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein but
at the same time is of the opinion that the same has no
application in the facts of the instant case.
18. As to whether the High Court in its exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is entitled
to interfere when the finding in a disciplinary proceeding is
Patna High Court L.P.A No.495 of 2024 dt.07-01-2025
based on no evidence came up for consideration of this Court in
LPA no.446 of 2024 (The State of Bihar and Ors vs. Vikash
Kumar @ Vikas Kumar), paragraph nos.8 to 13 of which is
reproduced herein below for ready reference:
"8. The decisions in Union of India v. Mohd.
Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 and ECIL v.
B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727; considered
the issue of denial of reasonable opportunity,
when the enquiry report was not supplied to the
delinquent employee; after the 42nd amendment
of the Constitution of India. Before the 42 nd
amendment of the Constitution, there was a
requirement to issue notice to the delinquent
employee to show-cause against the punishment
proposed, for which a reasonable opportunity
of making representation on the penalty
proposed was a mandatory condition under
Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The
42nd amendment removed the above condition
and it was the contention of the employers that
there was no requirement to supply the enquiry
report. It was categorically held that whenever
the Enquiry Officer is someone other than the
Disciplinary Authority and the report of the
Enquiry Officer holds the employee guilty of all
or any of the charges; with proposal for any
punishment or not, the delinquent employee is
entitled to a copy of the report to enable him to
make a representation to the Disciplinary
Authority against the findings in the report.
9. The non-furnishing of the report, hence
amounts to violation of principles of natural
justice; in which context a remand is
necessitated, to supply the enquiry report and
afford a reasonable opportunity to the
delinquent to represent against the prejudicial
findings. The remand is to cure the technical
defect, so as to avoid any prejudice being
caused to the delinquent, by reason of denial of
a reasonable opportunity, before being
Patna High Court L.P.A No.495 of 2024 dt.07-01-2025
penalized and not to clear up the lacuna
committed by the Management in the conduct of
the enquiry; especially when the enquiry was
carried out in a negligent manner without
adducing any valid evidence.
10. ECIL (supra) by a larger Bench, on a
reference made, reaffirmed the dictum in Mohd.
Ramzan Khan (supra). These were cases in
which the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that a
reasonable opportunity, to defend the allegation
of misconduct levelled and represent against the
findings of the enquiry report, was not afforded
to the delinquent employee; in which case alone
there could be a remand made for the purpose of
curing the defect and affording a reasonable
opportunity to the delinquent employee.
11. The learned Single Judge has relied on
Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran; (2015) 2
SCC 610 from which we extract Paragraph 12
and 13:
12. Despite the well-settled position, it
is painfully disturbing to note that the
High Court has acted as an appellate
authority in the disciplinary
proceedings, reappreciating even the
evidence before the enquiry officer. The
finding on Charge I was accepted by the
disciplinary authority and was also
endorsed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings,
the High Court is not and cannot act as
a second court of first appeal. The High
Court, in exercise of its powers under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, shall not venture into
reappreciation of the evidence. The
High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent
authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of
natural justice in conducting the
proceedings;
Patna High Court L.P.A No.495 of 2024 dt.07-01-2025
(d) the authorities have disabled
themselves from reaching a fair
conclusion by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and merits
of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed
themselves to be influenced by
irrelevant or extraneous
considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it,
is so wholly arbitrary and capricious
that no reasonable person could ever
have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had
erroneously failed to admit the
admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had
erroneously admitted inadmissible
evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no
evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, the High Court
shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the
enquiry, in case the same has been
conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the
evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the
evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal
evidence on which findings can be
based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however
grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of
punishment unless it shocks its
conscience.
(underlining & bold font supplied, for
emphasis)
12. From the above extract it is very clear that
the High Court under Article 226/227 is
Patna High Court L.P.A No.495 of 2024 dt.07-01-2025
entitled to interfere when the finding of fact is
based on no evidence. If in every case where
no valid evidence is led at the enquiry
proceedings, there is a remand made, it would
be offering a premium to the negligence of the
Management/Disciplinary Authority and
condoning the levity with which the
departmental enquiry was conducted. It is the
Disciplinary Authority who appoints the
Enquiry Officer and also the Presenting
Officer. We would think that the Presenting
Officer would be well versed in the procedures
and also be informed of the manner in which
evidence has to be led before the Enquiry
Officer to prove the misconduct alleged
against the delinquent employee.
13. In disciplinary enquiry proceedings, it is
also the trite principle that the standard of
proof is preponderance of probability as
distinguished from proof beyond reasonable
doubt; as would be required in a criminal
prosecution. However, if there is no evidence
led at the enquiry, there is no question of any
preponderance of probability being drawn to
find the allegations proved nor can the
delinquent be penalized on the basis of
peremptory findings without any valid
evidence."
19. In view of the facts and circumstances stated
herein above, in the opinion of the Court, the Inquiry Officer
erred even in coming to the finding that the charge vide Article
no.1 was partially proved as against the writ petitioner. The
learned Single Judge rightly set aside the order of penalty of
Rs.50,000/ imposed by the disciplinary authority as also the
order of the appellate authority upholding the same. In the
opinion of the Court, the appellant had not made out a case for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.495 of 2024 dt.07-01-2025
interference in the order of the learned Single Judge and the
Court finds no merit in the instant appeal.
20. The appeal is dismissed.
( Partha Sarthy, J)
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ): I agree.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
Saurabh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 09.12.2024
Uploading Date 07.01.2025
Transmission Date
