Case: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. &amp; Anr Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora

Officer as an Appellate Court/Authority and, therefore, the impugned judgments of the High Court are unsustainable. He, therefore, prayed that the appeals be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the High Court be quashed and set aside. 18. The respondent Mr. Ashok Kumar Arora appeared in person and tried to justify the orders passed by the High Court. He submitted that the Enquiry Officer had totally misconstrued the materials on record and erroneously found him guilty of the charges levelled against him. There was no sufficient material before the Enquiry Officer to hold him guilty of misconduct and, therefore, the High Court has rightly interfered with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He also submitted that there is patent discrimination while awarding the extreme penalty of dismissal against him whereas other employees were let off on minor punishments. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was thus discriminatory and the High Court had committed no error while ordering his reinstatement. There is no substance in the appeals and the same be dismissed. 19. We have given our anxious thought to the various contentions raised before us and have gone through the materials on record since the respondent was appearing in person. On careful scrutiny of the materials on record, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders passed by the High Court are unsustainable for the following reasons.20. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/Authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited. For instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. There is catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Suffice it to refer to a few decisions of this Court on this topic viz., State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, 1963(3) SCR 25, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao, 1976(1) SCR 521, Corporation of City of Nagpur and Anr. v. Ramachandra, 1981(3) SCR 22 and Nelson Motis v. Union of India and Anr., 1993(1) SCT 133(SC) : JT 1992(5) SC 511 : AIR 1992 SC 1981 .21. The Enquiry Officer on appraisal of the materials before him held that the respondent was actively involved and a brain behind procuring false medical certificates and medical bills not only for himself but for other employees and on the basis of which the reimbursement claims were made by the respondent and other employees. The Corporation sanctioned these reimbursement claims of the various employees which had resulted into monetary loss to the Corporation. Before the Enquiry Officer except the respondent other employees of the Corporation admitted the charges and consequently, a minor penalty was awarded to them. The respondent contested the charges levelled against him and denied that he was instrumental in cheating or committing forgery of the medical bills. On consideration of report and findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority took a lenient view in respect of other employees. Having regard to the involvement of the respondent in the entire episode, the Disciplinary Authority awarded him the penalty of dismissal from service. The order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the respondent was also affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Curiously enough, the High Court in its impugned judgment compared the case of the respondent with the other employees who have been awarded a lesser penalty and opined that there is a discrimination resorted to by the Disciplinary Authority in the matter of awarding the punishment. It is this action of the Disciplinary Authority in awarding the penalty being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In support of this reasoning, the High Court placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Sengara Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1983(3) S.L.R. 685 and the passage therefrom was reproduced in the impugned judgment which is distinguishable on facts. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 27th May, 1993 and were of the view that the High Court was wrong in interfering with the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. The High Court has totally overlooked the finding of the Enquiry Officer and affirmed by the Disciplinary Authority that the respondent was instrumental in obtaining forged medical bills not only for himself but also for other employees and he was the main actor behind the cheating to the Corporation. It is because of this finding, the Disciplinary Authority, in our opinion, rightly considered the award of penalty/punishment to the respondent differently than the other employees who although got the benefit of reimbursement on the forged bills but they accepted their guilt before the Enquiry Officer. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the High Court had committed serious jurisdictional error while interfering with the quantum of punishment. There is neither any discrimination resorted to by the Disciplinary Authority nor the punishment awarded to the respondent was disproportionate to his misconduct. The impugned judgment and order of High Court, therefore, are unsustainable.22. Coming to the next submission of the respondent that he was denied a reasonable opportunity by the Enquiry Officer, we find that the same is devoid of any merits. The respondent was unable to illustrate in what manner he was denied a reasonable opportunity.23. The impugned orders made in the review applications filed by the appellants are also unsustainable. In the review applications, all these contentions were specifically taken up, yet the High Court without adverting to any of these contentions has dismissed these review applications without assigning sustainable reasons.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]19. We have given our anxious thought to the various contentions raised before us and have gone through the materials on record since the respondent was appearing in person. On careful scrutiny of the materials on record, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders passed by the High Court are unsustainable for the following reasons.20. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/Authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited. For instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because ofof principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. There is catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Suffice it to refer to a few decisions of this Court on this topic viz., State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, 1963(3) SCR 25, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao, 1976(1) SCR 521, Corporation of City of Nagpur and Anr. v. Ramachandra, 1981(3) SCR 22 and Nelson Motis v. Union of India and Anr., 1993(1) SCT 133(SC) : JT 1992(5) SC 511  : AIR 1992 SC 1981 .21. The Enquiry Officer on appraisal of the materials before him held that the respondent was actively involved and a brain behind procuring false medical certificates and medical bills not only for himself but for other employees and on the basis of which the reimbursement claims were made by the respondent and other employees. The Corporation sanctioned these reimbursement claims of the various employees which had resulted into monetary loss to the Corporation. Before the Enquiry Officer except the respondent other employees of the Corporation admitted the charges and consequently, a minor penalty was awarded to them. The respondent contested the charges levelled against him and denied that he was instrumental in cheating or committing forgery of the medical bills. On consideration of report and findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority took a lenient view in respect of other employees. Having regard to the involvement of the respondent in the entire episode, the Disciplinary Authority awarded him the penalty of dismissal from service. The order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the respondent was also affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Curiously enough, the High Court in its impugned judgment compared the case of the respondent with the other employees who have been awarded a lesser penalty and opined that there is a discrimination resorted to by the Disciplinary Authority in the matter of awarding the punishment. It is this action of the Disciplinary Authority in awarding the penalty being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In support of this reasoning, the High Court placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Sengara Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1983(3) S.L.R. 685 and the passage therefrom was reproduced in the impugned judgment which is distinguishable on facts. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 27th May, 1993 and were of the view that the High Court was wrong in interfering with the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. The High Court has totally overlooked the finding of the Enquiry Officer and affirmed by the Disciplinary Authority that the respondent was instrumental in obtaining forged medical bills not only for himself but also for other employees and he was the main actor behind the cheating to the Corporation. It is because of this finding, the Disciplinary Authority, in our opinion, rightly considered the award of penalty/punishment to the respondent differently than the other employees who although got the benefit of reimbursement on the forged bills but they accepted their guilt before the Enquiry Officer. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the High Court had committed serious jurisdictional error while interfering with the quantum of punishment. There is neither any discrimination resorted to by the Disciplinary Authority nor the punishment awarded to the respondent was disproportionate to his misconduct. The impugned judgment and order of High Court, therefore, are unsustainable.22. Coming to the next submission of the respondent that he was denied a reasonable opportunity by the Enquiry Officer, we find that the same is devoid of any merits. The respondent was unable to illustrate in what manner he was denied a reasonable opportunity.23. The impugned orders made in the review applications filed by the appellants are also unsustainable. In the review applications, all these contentions were specifically taken up, yet the High Court without adverting to any of these contentions has dismissed these review applications without assigning sustainable reasons.