Telangana High Court
M/S. Radhika Logistics vs The Union Of India And 2 Others on 3 June, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.7144 OF 2023
Between:
M/s Radhika Logistics
... Petitioner
And
Union of India and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 03.06.2024
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
___________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.7144 OF 2023
% 03.06.2024
Between:
# M/s Radhika Logistics
... Petitioner
And
$ Union of India & others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr T.Bala Mohan Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1: Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar,
Dy.Solicitor General of India
^Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 3: Sri Dominic Fernandes
? Cases Referred:
1. (1948) 1 KB 223
2. 1995(6) SCC 749
3. 2013 (12) SCC 372
4. (2007) 4 SCC 699
5. (2013) 5 SCC 470
3
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.7144 OF 2023
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy,
appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Sri Gadi Praveen
Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri Dominic
Fernandes appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2
and 3.
2. The petitioner approached the court seeking the
prayer as under:
"to grant an order direction or writ more so in the
nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings
bearing Ref. No. TAPSO OPS/POL/VGA TML/ITDG/22-22/06
dated 28.02.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent herein
whereby the petitioners contract was terminated and tank
trucks being blacklisted apart from imposing penalty
contrary to the provisions of Oil Industry Transport
Discipline Guidelines (ITDG) as illegal, arbitrary,
highhanded violative of principles of natural justice apart
from being violative of article 14 of Constitution of India
and consequently to set aside the proceedings bearing Ref.
No. TAPSO OPS/POL/VGA TML/ITDG/ 22-22/06 dated
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
28.02.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent herein and pass
such other order or orders...."
3. PERUSED THE RECORD :
A) The relevant portion of the order impugned dated
28.02.2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent bearing Ref. No.
TAPSO OPS/POL/VGA TML/ITDG/ 22-22/06, reads as
under :
"Transporter is also found to be in violation of following
clauses of ITDG:
S.No. ITDG Type of Penalty
Clause
malpractice/Irregularity
No.
3. 8.2.1.k Tampering with standard TT shall be
fittings of TT including the blacklisted as
sealing, security locks, per Clause
security locking system, No.8.2.2.11
calibration, Vehicle Mounted
Unit or its fittings/fixures.
5. 8.2.1.r Any act of the carrier/carrier's As decided by
representative that may be the Company as
harmful to the good per Clause
name/image of the Oil No.8.2.2.16
Company, its products or its
services.
The alteration made in the TT by inserting the non-
standard rod inside the dip pipe of M2 compartment has
affected the quality and quantity of the product and there
is deemed complicity and for the same ITDG provides for
the following penal provisions:
Quote
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
"In the following irregularities, the complicity of the
carrier shall be deemed to be existent and the whole
contract comprising of all the TTs belonging to the
concerned carrier shall be terminated, security
deposit forfeited and the concerned carrier & their all
TTs shall be blacklisted on Industry basis:
1. False/hidden compartment, unauthorized fittings
or alteration in standard fittings affecting Quality and
Quantity.
2. Illegal/un-authorized duplicate keys of security
locks.
3. Duplicate dip rod/calibration chart."
Unquote
Wherefore after considering your show cause reply,
submissions made during the personal hearing and reasons
stated above, the competent authority has taken a decision
that you have been found guilty in altering with the
standard fitting of the TT by introducing non- standard rod
inside the dip pipe of M2 compartment for removing the
product and ensuring that dip level remains same of short
delivery of the product and following actions to be taken
against the transporter as per transport agreement and
ITDG:
1) Termination of Contract along with forfeiture of
Security Deposit of Rs.8,00,000/-
2) Blacklisting of transporter M/s Radhika Logistics
and its entire fleet alongwith the crew engaged at
Vijayawada terminal for two years on industry basis.
3) Recovery of the total loss of Rs. 67,41,670.38
(Rupees Sixty-Seven lakhs Forty-One Thousand Six
Hundred Seventy only) accounted from the date of
last calibration.
This letter is issued without prejudice to any of the
Corporation's rights and remedies against the transporter.
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
B. Counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent No.2
and 3, and in particular, Paras 12, 15 and 16 read as
follows :
"12. In reply to paragraph no. 8 of the writ affidavit it is
submitted that the initial notice with sum arrived is
mentioned as Rs.54,63,350.84 based on the invoice price.
As a matter of fact the Recovery shall be made from the
transporter at the retail-selling price at the dispatch
location or non- subsidized market determined price of
such product, whichever is higher and transportation
charges for the shortage quantity as per the Transport
Agreement Clause 9.C (i). That recovery of
Rs.67,41,670.38 is computed in line with ITDG 2.3.6 and
the Transport Agreement Clause 9.C.(i). As per ITDG
clause No.2.3.6 "Tampering with calibration of vehicle in
any manner shall be construed as a malpractice and penal
action will be taken against the carrier as outlined under
clause no. 8. Further, alleged product losses will be
recovered from the carrier from the date of last
calibration." In the current instance, provision of spurious
additional fittings in Dip pipe of M2 compartment which
tantamount to tampering of calibration, is a malpractice as
per clause no.8.2.1 k. The TT was last calibrated on 24-02-
2022, the alleged product losses computed from 24-02-
2022 to 24-09-2022. The very fact that the representative
of the petitioner has agreed for blacklisting of the subject
TT itself is confession of the charges levelled by the
company on the transporter which by itself forms bases for
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
the contraventions committed. The statement of the
petitioner that there were no complaints on the petitioner
fails to stand when the unauthorized fitting in the TT and
the resultant shortage have been established.
15. It is further respectfully submitted that since there is
deemed complicity and for the same ITDG provides for the
following penal provisions:
"In the following irregularities, the complicity of the
carrier shall he deemed to be existent and the whole
contract comprising of all the TTs belonging to the
concerned carrier shall be terminated, security
deposit forfeited and the concerned carrier & their all
TTs shall be blacklisted on Industry basis:
1. False/hidden compartment, unauthorized fittings
or alteration in standard fittings affecting Quality and
Quantity.
2. Illegal/un-authorized duplicate keys of security
locks.
3. Duplicate dip rod/caliberation chart."
16. It is submitted that in view of above, as approved by
the competent authority, that there is deemed complicity
of the transporter and following penal action under ITDG is
recommended:
(i) Termination of Contract along with forfeiture of Security
Deposit of Rs 8,00,000/-
(ii) Blacklisting of transporter M/s Radhika Logistics and its
entire fleet along with the crew engaged at Vijayawada
terminal for two years on industry basis
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
(iii) Recovery of the total loss of Rs. 67,41,670.38 (Rupees
Sixty-Seven lakhs Forty-One Thousand Six Hundred
Seventy only) accounted from the date of last calibration.
Therefore, in view of the above observations, it is
established that the transporter is responsible for the
tampering with the standard fitting of the TT by
introducing non-standard fitting inside the dip pip of M2
compartment for removing the product and ensuring that
dip level remains same. The transporter being the
custodian of the TT is responsible for any alteration with
the standard fittings of the TT. The above act/irregularities
committed are found to be in violation of the transport
contract agreement date 01.04.2017 signed by the
transporter with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The alteration
made in the TT by inserting the spurious additional fitting
inside the dip pipe of M2 compartment has affected the
quality and quantity of the product and there is deemed
complicity and for the same for which ITDG provides for
the penal provisions. The above are in line with the
procedure of the Corporation.
C. The relevant Oil Industry Transport Discipline
Guidelines, reads as under:
Clause 8.2 -Penalties for Malpractices/Irregularities.
Clause 8.2.1 - Malpractices/Irregularities will cover
any of the following :
a. Unauthorized deviation from specified
route/unauthorized delay/unauthorized en-route
stoppage/not reaching destination/over speeding-en-
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
route switching off VMU/unauthorized removal of
VMU/ use of VMU on other vehicles.
k. Tampering with standard fittings of TT including
the sealing, security locks, security locking system,
calibration, Vehicle Mounted Unit or its
fittings/fixtures.
q. Pilferage/short delivery of product.
r. Any act of the carrier/carrier's representative that
may be harmful to the good name/image of the Oil
Company, its products or its services.
Clause 8.2.2-Penalties upon detection of
malpractice/ irregularities
Clause 8.2.2.11 - read as under :
Type of malpractice/irregularity : Tampering with
standard fittings of TT including the sealing security locks,
security locking system, Calibration.
Penalty against number of instance, first TT shall be
black listed
Clause 8.2.2.16 - Type of malpractice/irregularity:
Any act of the carrier/carrier's representative that may be
harmful to the good name/image of the Oil Company, its
products or its services.
Penalty against number of instance, First as decided
by the company.
Clause 8.2.3 - Period of blacklisting: The period of
blacklisting for the carrier & TTs shall be minimum 2 years
or as per the respective corporation's assessment
depending upon seriousness of the offence, but not
exceeding 5 years. The TTs, on completion of Black listing
period, can ply under the same contract in case the validity
of contract exists and the company so desires.
In case the same TT is found to indulge in malpractice
again (after completion of the first blacklisting period), the
second time blacklisting shall be of 5 years.
The blacklisting of TTs shall be on Industry basis.
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
4. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, as per the
averments made in the affidavit filed by the Petitioner in
support of the present writ petition is as under :
a) It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner herein is
a firm, which is engaged in transport business and was awarded
work order by the 2nd respondent herein vide work order No.
TAPSO/POL/MSHSD/Branded Fuels/ LOI/252232/87 dated
03.03.2017. That the said work order is for transportation of
MS/HSD branded fuels from ex-Vijayawada terminal and was
placed for 7 Tank Trucks with 12 KL capacity, belonging to
petitioner. The said work agreement was subsequently extended
vide Ref No. VJT/OPS/Bulk-POL/2022-2023/Extn-3 dated
01.12.2022 from 01.12.2022 to 28.02.2023.
b) It is further the case of the petitioner that, on 24.09.2022,
the subject truck bearing No. AP16D6829, which was loaded with
8 KL MS/ 4KL HSD reached the retail outlet of one M/s. Naga
Poornasree Filling Station- Kruthivennu, wherein the manager of
the retail outlet said to have complained to the IOCL authorities
that, while conducting pre-decantation checks, it was said to be
observed by him that after removing 150 liters also the same
was not shown on dip rod in respect of M2 compartment and on
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
the same day, the authorities have conducted joint inspection
without the presence of the driver or owner.
c) After competition of inspection, the said tank truck was
said to be e-locked and kept in the RO for further investigation.
On 26.09.2022, the Asst. Controller, Legal Metrology, Gudivada
has conducted panchanama cum seizure in which it was stating
that there was shortage of 230 liters in M2Compartment.
Thereafter, a panchanama copy notice vide Notice
No.112/WM/2022-23 dated 23.02.2023 was issued to petitioner
(through IOCL Kondapalle) by the Asst. Controller, Legal
Metrology, Gudivada and to the said proceedings the petitioner
herein has submitted its reply with remarks.
d) It is further the case of the petitioner that, the 3rd
Respondent herein had issued a show cause notice in Ref.No.
TAPSO OPS/POL/VGA TML/ITDG/22-22/06 dated 10.11.2022,
making certain allegations and called upon the petitioner to
submit its reply within a period of 15 days and the petitioner
herein has submitted its reply vide letter dated 05.12.2022
without any deviation. The 3rd respondent herein has once again
issued another notice dated 08.02.2023, increasing the amount
recoverable, in the initial notice it is alleged that the sum arrived
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
is mentioned as Rs. 54,63,350.84 and in the revised notice it
was mentioned as Rs. 67,41,670.38. Subsequent to the notice, a
personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner on 23.02.2023
and in the said hearing, in view of impending completion of
contract period by 28.02.2023, it was represented by the
petitioner that the other actions proposed in the instant case are
agreeable, while objecting to recovery amount and blacklisting of
entire fleet and crew instead of one vehicle as per the ITDG.
e) It is the specific case of the petitioner that, the 3rd
respondent by extracting the relevant norms passed the
impugned proceedings bearing Ref.No. TAPSO OPS/POL/VGA
TML/ITDG/ 22-22/06 dated 28.02.2023 terminating the contract
of the petitioner, forfeiting the security deposit and the entire
fleet and crew of the petitioner were blacklisted for a period of
two years on industry basis and an amount of Rs.67,41,670.38
sought to be recovered from the petitioner, which is said to be
from the last date of calibration i.e., 24.02.2022 to 24.09.2022.
The above said proceedings are clearly contrary to terms of the
agreement and the ITDG in vogue. Thus, aggrieved by the said
proceedings dated 28.02.2023, the present Writ Petition is filed.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION :
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
A) It is the specific case of the Petitioner that in response to
the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner alleging various
irregularities against the Petitioner and indicating the penalties
sought to be imposed, the Petitioner in the personal hearing in
good faith accepted for blacklisting of that particular tank truck
which was involved in the incident and which is in line with the
allegations made in the show cause notice as per 8.2.1.k. But
however, the said submission made by the Petitioner had been
taken against the Petitioner to hold against the Petitioner.
B) A bare perusal of the order impugned dt. 28.02.2023
issued by the 3rd Respondent indicates in its conclusion
that the alteration made in the TT by inserting the non-
standard rod inside the dip pipe of M2 compartment has
effected the quality and quantity of the product and there
is deemed complicity and for the same ITDG provides for
the specific penal provisions (referred to and extracted
above).
C) A bare perusal of the extracted portion of the order
impugned dated 28.02.2023 of the 3rd Respondent
extracted above clearly indicates that there is no
observation or reasoning with regard to complicity on the
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
part of the Petitioner whereby the order impugned had
been passed blacklisting entire fleet and crew for a period
of 2 years on industry basis instead of one vehicle as per
ITDG and contract of the Petitioner was terminated and
security deposit was forfeited and an amount of
Rs.67,41,670.38 was sought to be recovered from the
Petitioner which is said to be from the last date of
calibration i.e., 24.02.2022 to 24.09.2022. The order
impugned dated 28.02.2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent
refers to the Petitioner's submission and the remarks in a
tabular statement and the same is extracted hereunder :
S. Transporter's submission Remarks
No
.
1. That other actions proposed by The submission of the representative
the Company are agreeable with of the transporter that they are
a request the to waive the agreeable to other actions
recovery of Rs.67 Laksh to categorically shows that there is
approx. as there was no physical admission an to irregularities
loss to the Corporation and no observed during the inspection dated
previous complaint from the 24.09.2022 and 26.09.2022.
dealer about the shortage. Further, as observed above, it has
been established that transporter is
involved in tampering of the TT by
inserting the non-standard rod in the
dip pipe of compartment M2.
Furthermore, the recovery is to be
made from the date of last
calibration i:e. 24.09.2022 as per
ITDG
2. That particular TT may be There is an clear admission of the
blacklisted and the firm to irregularities observed during the
continue in the POL inspection by requesting for
transportation contract. blacklisting of one TT.
3. That the company to consider Introducing non-standard fitting in
the past performance and loyalty the dip pipe is a serious irregularity
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
to the Corporation especially which has not only caused loss to the
during the crisis at Ramagundam dealer but has also tarnished the
before making final award in the image of the Corporation which
case. requires corrective measures to be
taken.
D) The order impugned of the 3rd Respondent dated
28.02.2023 further indicates a tabular statement referring
to the malpractice and the penalty imposed and the same
reads as under :
S. ITDG Type of malpractice/irregularity Penalty
No.
1. 2.5.6 The crew of the Tank truck which As per 2.1 of ITDG, ITDG is a part
are signing the invoice at the of Agreement and as per 15 (e) of
loading location should deliver agreement, in case of breach of
the product at the destination. In any of terms & conditions of
case of substitution of crew due agreement, Company reserves the
to any reason, the same should right to Terminate the agreement
be done only after obtaining
permission from the location.
2. 8.2.1.a Unauthorized deviation from TT shall be blacklisted as per claue
specified route / unauthorized No.8.2.2.2
delay / Unauthorized en-route
stoppage / not reaching
destination / over a speeding /
en-route switching off VMU /
Unauthorized removal of VMU /
use of VMU on other vehicles
3. 8.2.1.k Tampering with standard fittings TT Shall be blacklisted as per
of TT including the sealing, clause no.8.2.2.11
security locks, security locking
system, calibration, Vehicle
Mounted Unit or its fittings /
fixtures Unit or its fittings /
fixtures
4. 8.2.1.q Pilferage/short delivery of TT Shall be blacklisted as per
product) clause no.8.2.2.3
5. 8.2.1.r Any act of the carrier / carrier's As decided by the Company as per
representative that may be Clause no 8.2.2.16.
harmful to the good name /
image of the Oil Company, its
products or its services
E) A bare perusal of the record further indicates that
the Oil Corporation issued a work order to the Petitioner
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
in the year 2017 for a period of 5 years and that came to
an end on 31.03.2022 and the Petitioner was given
extensions thereafter from time to time and the last
extension being from 01.12.2022 to 28.02.2023, the same
indicates that Petitioner had no complaints from any
person. The order impugned also is silent and does not
give any details pertaining to the actual loss incurred by
the Respondent Corporation even on the subject date of
the alleged incident nor there is any discussion as to the
basis for arriving at the said figure. This Court opines that
the order impugned dt. 28.02.2023 is bereft of reasons
and does not through its reasoning justify the imposition
of the major penalty against the Petitioner except stating
that there is deemed complicity attracting penal
provisions. It is too well settled principle of law that
orders which are quasi judicial in nature would have to be
a reasoned order and that being conspicuous by its
absence, this Court opines that the impugned order dated
28.02.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent warrants
interference by this Court under the present
circumstances.
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
F) A bare perusal of the counter affidavit filed by
Respondent No.2 and 3 at para 15 indicates that since
there is deemed complicity the order impugned had been
passed and the same had been approved by the
competent authority.
G) The order impugned dated 28.02.2023 passed by the
3rd Respondent is not only an unreasoned, unjust order
but the same is contrary to the doctrine of proportionality
as well.
H) In the judgment of the Apex Court in Omkumar v
Union of India reported in 2001 (2) SCC 386, the Court
after considering the Wednesbury principles and the
doctrine of proportionality, has observed and held that the
question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters
is primarily for the disciplinary authority and the
jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the
Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited
and is confined to the applicability of one or other of the
well-known principles known as 'Wednesbury principles'.
In the Wednesbury case, (1948) 1 KB 223, it was
observed that when a statute gave discretion to an
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
administrator to take a decision, the scope of judicial
review would remain limited. Lord Greene further said
that interference was not permissible unless one or the
other of the following conditions was satisfied, namely,
the order was contrary to law, or relevant factors were
not considered, or irrelevant factors were considered, or
the decision was one which no reasonable person could
have taken.
I) This Court opines that the order impugned passed by
the 3rd respondent clearly indicates that the same is one
which no reasonable person could have passed.
J) In the case of B.C.Chaturvedi v Union of India
reported in 1995(6) SCC 749 it was observed and held at
para No. 18 as under:
"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
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
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."
The way the order impugned dated 28.02.2023 is passed
by the 3rd respondent in the present writ petition without
any reasoning and justification shocks the conscience of
this Court.
K) In the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now
Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) v Rajendra Singh
reported in 2013 (12) SCC 372 at para 19, observed as
under:
"19. The principles discussed above can be summed
up and summarised as follows:
19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an
enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a
particular case is essentially the domain of the
departmental authorities.
19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of
disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be
awarded, as this function is exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the competent authority.
19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere
with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority, only in cases where such penalty is found
to be shocking to the conscience of the court.
19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set
aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of
charges framed against the delinquent employee, the
appropriate course of action is to remit the matter
back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate
authority with direction to pass appropriate order of
penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to
what should be the penalty in such a case.
19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para
19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-
delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the
disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct
were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more
serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality
when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-
delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a
complete parity between the two, not only in respect of
nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the
service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-
delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with
unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be
justifiable."
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
This Court opines that the present case falls under 19.3
and 19.4 extracted above.
L) The Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2007) 4
SCC 699 in Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank
Vs. Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank
Employees Association explained the concept of
proportionality in the following manner :
'proportionality' is a principle where the Court is
concerned with the process, method or manner in which
the decision-maker has ordered his priorities, reached a
conclusion or arrived at a decision. The very essence of the
decision-making consists in the attribution of relative
importance to the factors and considerations in the case.
The doctrine of proportionality thus steps in focus true
nature of exercise - the elaboration of a Rule of
permissible priorities. De Smith states that 'proportionality'
involves 'balancing test' and 'necessity test'. Whereas the
former (balancing test) permits scrutiny of excessive
onerous penalties or infringement of rights or interests and
a manifest imbalance of relevant considerations, the latter
(necessity test) requires infringement of human rights to
the least restrictive alternative'.
This court opines that the Judgments relied upon by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents do not apply to the facts of the present case.
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
6. Taking into consideration
i) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
ii) The observations of the Apex Court in the judgment
reported in (a) 2001 (2) SCC 386 in "Omkumar v. Union of
India", (b) 1995 (6) SCC 749 in "B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union
of India", (c) 2013 (12) SCC 372 in "Lucknow Kshetriya
Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin
Bank) v. Rajendra Singh", and (d) (2007) 4 SCC 699 in
"Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Vs.
Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Employees
Association", (referred to and extracted above),
iii) Duly considering the averments made at para Nos.
12, 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
Respondent No.2 and 3 (referred to and extracted above),
iv) Duly taking note of the fact as borne on record that
there is neither justification nor any reasoning in the
order impugned dated 28.02.2023 passed by the 3rd
Respondent in arriving at a conclusion and imposing the
major penalty against the Petitioner, terminating the
contract of the Petitioner, forfeiting the security deposit of
the Petitioner, blacklisting the entire fleet and crew of 7
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
tank trucks of the Petitioner for a period of 02 (two) years
on industry basis though admittedly as borne on record
only one tank truck of the petitioner was involved in the
said subject incident and further directing recovery of sum
of Rs.67,41670.38 towards product loss of 230 litres from
24.02.2022 to 24.09.2022, is totally arbitrary and
irrational,
v) Applying principle of doctrine of proportionality to
the facts of the present case, and
vi) Without going into the merits of the rival contentions
put-forth by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.2
and 3,
vii) The writ petition is allowed, the order impugned dt.
28.02.2023 vide proceedings TAPSO OPS/POL/VGA
TML/ITDG/22-22/06 issued by the 3rd Respondent is set
aside and the matter is remitted to the 3rd Respondent
and the 3rd Respondent is directed to reconsider the same
objectively and uninfluenced by its earlier decision dated
28.02.2023, imposing major penalty against the petitioner
and re-examine the whole issue afresh again, and pass
Wp_7144_2023
Sn,j
appropriate order of penalty, in accordance to law, in
conformity with principles of natural justice, by providing
a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner, within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date
of receipt of the copy of the order and duly communicate
its decision to the Petitioner.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ
Petition, shall stand closed.
________________________
SUREPALLI NANDA,J
Dated 03.06.2024
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
b/o. yvkr/ktm
