Tripura High Court
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited ... vs Sri Subrata Debbarma on 23 July, 2025
Author: T.Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA 68 of 2025
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Ors
---Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Subrata Debbarma
---Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, Advocate General
Mrs. Paromita Dhar, Advocate.
Mr. John Debbarma, Advocate.
Mr. Manash Debbarma, Advocate.
Mr. Hirojit Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
Date of hearing and date of
judgment and order : 23.07.2025
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order (Oral)
Dr. T.Amarnath Goud, J
[1] This is an appeal under Rule B(A) of Chapter VIII of the High
Court of Tripura Rules, 2023 read with Articles 226 of the Constitution of
India preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.05.2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 10 of 2023.
[2] It is the case of the appellant that a departmental proceeding
was initiated against the respondent herein under Rule 36 of ONGC
Conduct, Discipline Appeal Rules, 1994. The disciplinary authority passed
an order dated 09.10.2018 imposing penalty of removal from service which
would not be a disqualification for future employment under the
Government or the corporation/company owned or controlled by the
Government. Challenging the order of penalty, the respondent herein
preferred Writ Petition which was registered as W.P. (C) No. 1192 of 2018.
By judgment dated 21.11.2019 the article of charges No. 2 & 3 were
quashed but found sufficient materials in respect of article of charge No. 1.
[3] The appellants herein preferred appeal which was registered as
Writ Appeal No. 184 of 2020 and the matter was disposed by judgment
dated 12.08.2022 remitting the matter and directing the respondent to submit
representation. That, in terms of the direction of this Court the respondent
herein submitted his appeal on 24.08.2022 and the appellate authority vide
order dated 01.11.2022 dismissed the said appeal by affirming the penalty.
[4] The respondent herein thereafter filed a Writ Petition - WP(C)
10 of 2023, for quashing the order dated 09.10.2018 and the appellate order
dated 01.11.2022 and the learned Single Judge by judgment dated
07.05.2025 quashed the impugned order dated 01.11.2022 and directed the
appellate authority to decide the matter afresh with regard to the nature and
quantum of penalty.
[5] Being aggrieved this appeal is therefore preferred seeking to set
aside the judgment dated 07.05.2025 and uphold the Appellate Authority's
order dated 01.11.2022, being lawful, reasoned, and passed after due
consideration of proportionality and service record in accordance with the
applicable rules and judicial directions.
[6] It is contended by the counsel for the appellants that the
Learned Single Judge erred both in law and jurisdiction by interpreting the
Division Bench's phrase 'must be taken into consideration' as creating a
binding obligation on the Appellate Authority to reduce the penalty. The
findings of the Learned Single Judge in paragraph 34 of the impugned
judgment dated 07.05.2025 amounts to wrongful exercise of jurisdiction
vested in it by constraining the appellants to reach only one conclusion.
[7] Firstly, the expression "it became now obligatory" transforms a
judicial observation made by the Division Bench into a binding command,
which was never the intent of the Division Bench.
[8] Secondly, for the sake of clarity and brevity, the relevant
portion of paragraph 34 of the impugned judgment dated 07.05.2025 is
reproduced hereunder:
"The words 'must be taken into consideration' cannot and
should not be understood and interpreted with such laxity and
elasticity so as to enable the appellate authority to sit over such
observation and to affirm the penalty as was imposed by the
disciplinary authority, on the same set of facts based on which
such observations were made by both the Ld. Single Judge and
then by the Division Bench."
[9] It is further submitted by the appellants that the Appellate
Authority in compliance with the directions issued by the Division Bench in
W.A. No. 184 of 2020 had duly considered the proportionality of the penalty
and gave exhaustive reasons, including repeated misconduct deliberately,
performance records, the organizational impact and aggravating
circumstances warranting removal from service as apparent from paragraph
10, 11 and 12 (Annexure 10 of the Writ Petition). But from the aforesaid
extract, the phrase 'sit over such observation and to affirm the penalty'
reflects an erroneous understanding of the role of the Appellate Authority
under Rule 51(2) of the ONGC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1994.
The Division Bench, while remanding the matter did not set aside the
penalty but directed that the proportionality must be considered, which the
Appellate Authority had done. To suggest that the authority cannot affirm
the penalty, even after proper consideration, would render the appellate
process illusory and mechanical. In the aforesaid extract, the phrase 'must be
taken into consideration' is again transformed from a judicial observation
made by the Division Bench into a binding one, narrowing the scope of the
Appellate Authority and excluding the possibility of any independent
evaluation.
[10] Heard and perused the record.
[11] It is apparent from the record that a departmental proceeding
was initiated against the respondent under Rule 36 of ONGC Conduct,
Discipline Appeal Rules, 1994 under the following three articles of charges:
"1. He is habitually irregular in attendance, wilfully and
habitually absents himself from duty without leave and absents
himself from his place of work after signing the attendance register
whereby he remains absent from his appointed place of work
without permission or sufficient cause. Latest example of his
unauthorised absence is from 02.01.2017 to 30.04.2017.
2. He has neglected his duty and on various occasions, refused to
per- form his official assignments/jobs and thereby has disobeyed
the lawful orders of his superiors and shown insubordination.
3. He has exhibited threatening, intimidating behaviour and has
abused his superiors on being asked to perform his duty or when
asked to submit leave applications to regularise his leave. He has
also exhibited similar threatening, intimidating behaviour and has
abused other regular/contractual employees of ONGC by using
insolent, impertinent and unparliamentary language."
[12] Having considered the materials on record and the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered
view that the learned Single Judge has rendered a reasoned and just decision,
which calls for no interference in appeal.
[13] The learned Single Judge, after a detailed analysis of the facts
of the case, as well as the prior binding observations of this Court, correctly
found that the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner
was shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. It was
further observed, and rightly so, that the appellate authority, despite being
duty-bound to give due weight and consideration to the observations and
directions of this Court, failed to do so in both letter and spirit.
[14] The appellate authority could not have ignored or diluted the
import of the Division Bench's earlier observation that the penalty appeared
to be disproportionate. The phrase "must be taken into consideration" was
not merely advisory but carried a binding judicial import, especially when
neither of the parties chose to challenge the earlier findings. The appellate
authority, however, instead of complying with the judicial mandate,
substituted its own opinion on the very same set of facts and thereby
reaffirmed the penalty in a manner that amounts to judicial indiscipline and
administrative arbitrariness.
[15] We are in complete agreement with the finding of the learned
Single Judge that such an approach by the appellate authority, disregarding
the binding precedents and the principle of proportionality in the imposition
of penalty, is not only unsustainable in law but also violates the principles of
fairness and reasonableness. Moreover, the matter has been remanded to the
appellate authority to decide the matter. It is needless to observe that the
appellate authority would pass a reasoned order considering the material
available in accordance with law. Now since the matter is with the appellate
authority this court is not inclined to express its opinion whether petitioner is
guilty or not guilty.
[16] Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the well-
reasoned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal
is, therefore, devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
[17] Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The judgment and
order dated order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is
hereby affirmed.
[18] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, stay, if any,
stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands closed.
B.Palit, J Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J
Dipak
DIPAK DAS DAS
Date: 2025.07.24
16:45:10 +05'30'
