Case: BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION  LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. ANIL PADEGAONKAR

3. A charge-sheet was issued to the employee on 31.12.1993 by the Deputy General Manager (Aviation) (hereinafter referred to as the DGM) while he was working on the post of Aviation Officer at the General Aviation Service Station, Gwalior, in the management cadre in Job Group A. It was alleged that fresh sand particles had been found in the all 10 fuel tanks after his duty hours in the C shift ended while the earlier inspection during the B shift had found it to be free of dirt and water except for minor traces of water in tank nos. 3 and 9. While the departmental proceedings were pending, a fresh charge-sheet was issued to the employee on 27.09.1994 with regard to absence from duty on 13.08.1994. The employee was therefore charged with having acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation and negligence in the performance of duty including malingering or slowing down of work under Clause 6 & 10 of Part III-A of the Bharat Petroleum Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management Staff, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Pursuant to a domestic inquiry, the inquiry officer returned a finding of guilt on 06.01.1995. The employee was furnished a copy of the report and after consideration of his reply, the Director (Marketing) under Part III-B (2)(f) of the Rules by a common order dated 21.05.1997 discharged the employee from service. The departmental appeal under the Rules was rejected by a reasoned order by the Chairman on 05.10.19984. The employee assailed the orders in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge, with regard to the first charge-sheet, held that the punishment of dismissal stood vitiated because the Functional Director alone was competent to issue the charge- sheet. The second charge-sheet though issued by the disciplinary authority, required reconsideration as the punishment was held disproportionate to the charge, necessitating an order of remand. The Corporation was granted liberty in appeal to issue a fresh charge-sheet with regard to the first charge and to pass a lesser order of punishment with regard to the second charge. Though reinstatement was ordered, the question of back wages was left for consideration subject to the outcome of such fresh proceedings.

Reasoning:
9. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The employee was posted at the Air Force Station Gwalior. There can be no two opinions that the nature of his duties had an inherent seriousness. Two charge-sheets were issued to him and departmental proceedings were conducted. The employee was given full opportunity of defence. A finding of guilt was arrived at by the enquiry officer with regard to both the charges. The employee in his departmental appeal raised no issues of procedural irregularity with consequent prejudice. A common order of punishment of discharge from service dated 21.05.1997 followed under Part III B (2)(e) of the Rules. No order of dismissal was passed under Part III-B (2)(f) of the Rules. If the Corporation was of the opinion that dismissal was the appropriate punishment in the facts of the case nothing prevented it from stating so. The High Court fell in a serious error by opining that the employee had been dismissed from service and on that premise arrived at the conclusion that the charge- sheet was incompetent in absence of it having been issued by the Functional Director who was the disciplinary authority under Sr. 1 (b) of Schedule I under Part III of the Rules for dismissal11. The employee either in his reply to the charges or in the departmental appeal rightly raised no issues with regard to lack of competence in the DGM to issue the charge-sheet. Sr. 1 (a) of Schedule I, to be read with Part III of the Rules, provides that with regard to Job Group A the Functional General Manager was the disciplinary authority for all other penalties except that of dismissal. The Functional Director was the disciplinary authority for punishment of dismissal only. The employee for the first time raised the issue in the writ petition that the charge-sheet had been issued by other than the disciplinary authority. If the employee had raised the issue either in his reply to the memo of charges or in appeal perhaps the Corporation could have addressed the issue better. We are of the considered opinion that the term Competent Authority will include a disciplinary authority so authorised in the manner prescribed in 3(h) under the delegation of authority manual dated 15.12.1987. Under Part III-F(1) of the Rules dealing with procedure for imposing major penalties, the disciplinary authority has been described to include an authority as specified in Schedule I. It includes both a Functional manager and Functional Director13. The fact that the words Disciplinary Authority or Competent Authority have been used interchangeably in Part III- F leaves no doubt in our mind that the delegation of authority manual had never been recalled or superseded. It is the specific case of the Corporation that the manual for delegation of authority issued on 15.12.1987 had never been withdrawn and the Corporation had all along in all other cases also acted on basis of the same and that no charge-sheet for a punishment lesser than dismissal had ever been issued by the Functional Director. The DGM was therefore fully competent under the manual also to both suspend and issue charge-sheet. The High Court itself reasoned that had the penalty been other than dismissal, the Functional Manager would have been competent to issue the charge-sheet. The High Court having posed unto itself the wrong question of dismissal from service, naturally arrived at an erroneous conclusion.