Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1208 (PAT)

Shiv Shankar Modi v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd

2007-07-25

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation. 2. The writ application in question has been filed by the petitioner to quash order dated 18.8.2004, which is the order of punishment imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority holding him guilty of misconduct under Rule 7 of Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1980. Punishment of reduction to lower rank has been imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner has also challenged the communication dated 9.11.2004, which is the order conveying to the petitioner that the appeal filed against the order of the disciplinary authority has been rejected by the appellate authority. This Court does not want to go into the background of the facts which led to holding of an enquiry against the petitioner as such. Submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner questioning the way the enquiry has been held as well as the evidence based on which the order of punishment came to be passed but since there is certain inherent limitation which has been imposed upon a Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 in a disciplinary proceedings this court is not inclined to go into reappraisal of evidence and come to any conclusion which may be contrary to the findings of the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority. Despite the submission of the petitioner, this Court did not give him indulgence in the matter. On perusal of the writ application and the pleadings this Court is satisfied that the enquiry was held against the petitioner within the parameters of the Rules and he was given fullest opportunity to defend himself. 3. The next limb of submission and attack of the petitioner that the order communicated to him contained in Annexure- 16 dated 9.11.2004 is no order at all because it is only a communication to him informing him that his appeal has been rejected by the competent authority without indicating the reasons why such opinion was arrived at by the appellate authority. To some extent learned counsel for the petitioner could be correct because on perusal of Annexure-16, it is apparent that this is a communication which has been made by the Deputy General Manager (HR):ER conveying the gist of opinion of the appellate authority. 4. To some extent learned counsel for the petitioner could be correct because on perusal of Annexure-16, it is apparent that this is a communication which has been made by the Deputy General Manager (HR):ER conveying the gist of opinion of the appellate authority. 4. Appellate authority is an independent body in his own right and the appel- late authority has to give its opinion and reasons while disposing of an appeal. Since the order communicated to the petitioner does not disclose the reasons or the original order is not annexed with the said communication then it is difficult for any employee to come to a conclusion that he has been given a fair hearing and that his appeal and communication of the appellate authority has been considered with due dispassion and application of mind. Appeal being a separate forum by itself does require some kind of opinion falling from the appellate authority in this regard. This Court is not satisfied with the communication which has been made to the petitioner contained in Annexure-16. 5. In the given facts, therefore, in so far as Annexure-16 is concerned the same is quashed and a direction is given to the appellate authority who is supposed to the Executive Director (Supplies), H.O. to com municate to the petitioner his reasoned decision for either agreeing or disagreeing with the findings which has been recorded by the disciplinary authority afresh in the matter. 6. This writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above.