Bharat Petroleum Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management Staff, 1976 – rr.3(e), (g), (h) – Part III B(2)(e), (f); Part III-A, Clauses 6 & 10; Part III-F(1), (23); Sr.1(a),
(b) of Schedule I – Respondent was working as Aviation Officer at the General Aviation Service Station, Gwalior, in the management cadre in Job Group ‘A’ – Charge-sheet issued to him by Deputy General Manager (Aviation) alleging that fresh sand particles were found in all the 10 fuel tanks after his duty hours – Fresh chargesheet issued w.r.t his absence from duty – Respondent discharged from service – Departmental appeal was rejected – Single Judge ordered remand – Corporation was granted liberty in appeal to issue fresh charge-sheet w.r.t first charge and to pass a lesser order of punishment w.r.t second charge – Held: Respondent was posted at Air Force Station Gwalior – Nature of his duties had an inherent seriousness – A finding of guilt was arrived at by enquiry officer w.r.t both the charges – In his departmental appeal, respondent raised no issues of procedural irregularity with consequent prejudice – Common order of punishment of ‘discharge’ from service followed u/Part III B(2)(e) of the Rules – No order of ‘dismissal’ was passed u/Part III-B (2) (f) – 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 – High Court fell in 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 Functional Director, the disciplinary authority for punishment of dismissal only – First charge-sheet was issued by an authority competent to do so – Order of discharge calls for no interference – Direction for issuance of fresh chargesheet is set aside – Service Law. Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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 Bharat Petroleum Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management Staff, 1976. 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 dismissal. [Para 9] [206-D-G]
1.2 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. In view of the conclusion that the first charge-sheet had been issued by an authority competent to do so, the order of discharge calls for no interference. The direction for issuance of fresh charge-sheet is therefore is set aside. [Paras 11, 14] [207-B-C; 208-D-E]
H.V. Nirmala v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation (2008) 7 SCC 639 : [2008] 7 SCR 1157 ; S.R. Tewari v. Union of India and Another (2013) 6 SCC 602 : [2013] 8 SCR 988 ; Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath (2014) 1 SCC 351 : [2013] 14 SCR 185 ; Chairmencum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Others v. Ananta Saha and Others (2011) 5 SCC 142 : [2011]
5 SCR 44 ; Dev Singh v. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Limited and Another (2003) 8 SCC 9 : (2003) 7 SCALE 122 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.