THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS versus AJIT KUMAR SINGH & ANR.

THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS.

AJIT KUMAR SINGH & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023)

MAY 17, 2023

[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]

Service Law: Disciplinary proceedings – Scope of judicialreview – Bid tampering matter, wherein disciplinary proceedingsinitiated against two employees – Order of imposition of majorpenalty of withholding five annual increments against therespondent no. 1 and punishment of reduction to lower gradeagainst the other employee – Order of punishment against therespondent no.1 upheld by the appellate authority as also the SingleJudge of the High Court – However, the punishment imposed setaside by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: During the courseof inquiry, fair opportunity of hearing was afforded to therespondent no.1 at every stage – This was even found by the SingleJudge – However, the Division Bench of the High Court dealt within manner as if it was the first stage of the case, namely, theinquiry was being conducted and inquiry report was being prepared,which is not the scope in judicial review – Division Bench of theHigh Court proceeded to reappreciate the entire evidence – Whenthe changed form of quotation also contained signature ofrespondent no.1, it clearly established his involvement in thetampering of document – Division Bench of the High Court failedto notice the same, thus, the order passed by the Division Bench setaside and that of the Single Judge restored – Judicial review.

Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) vs. AjaiKumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612; Ex-Const/DvrMukesh Kumar Raigar vs. Union of India and Ors.(2023) SCC Online SC 27 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

(2021) 2 SCC 612referred toPara 6CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.3663 of2023.

DEF

AFrom the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2019 of the High Courtof Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 1593 of 2015 in CWJ No. 2176 of2004.

V. N. Koura, Mrs. Paramjeet Benipal, Sirish Kumar, AvneeshArputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham for M/s. Arputham Aruna and Co.,BAdvs. for the Appellants.

Navaniti Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv., Vaibhav Niti, Ms. Sayaree BasuMallik, Md. Madhavi Agrawal, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CRAJESH BINDAL, J.

1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1593/2015 dated28.2.2019, the present appeal has been filed. Vide aforesaid order, thejudgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated25.6.2015 in CWJC No. 2176/2004 was reversed.D

2. The brief facts as available on record are that on 30.6.2001,tender notice was issued by the Appellant Corporation for the job of‘Repair of Surface Drain and Tank Pad and Tank No. 235, 236 and 237inside Refinery’ (Barauni Refinery), in which three bidders participated.Technical bids were opened on 24.8.2001. However, the price bids wereEnot opened on that day and were kept with the remarks ‘not openedtoday’ in the table drawer of K.C. Patel under lock. The keys thereofwere available with him and respondent no.1, Ajit Kumar Singh. Pricebids were opened on 1.10.2001. Form of quotation submitted by eachbidder was signed by K.C. Patel and G.S. Mahto. Entries were made inFthe register. While preparing the comparative table on 3.10.2001 K.C.Patel noticed change in the price bid of M/s. B.S. Jha as compared tothe quoted price in the form of quotation, which was recorded on1.10.2001. The signatures of K.C. Patel were missing in the changedform of quotation of price bid of M/s. B.S. Jha. There was over-writingin the quoted percentage wherein digit ‘9’ in the figure of ‘9.6’ wasGover-written as ‘5’. M/s. B.S. Jha, who was the second lowest bidder(L-2) when the price bids were opened on 1.10.2001, was found to bethe lowest bidder (L-1). The matter was not reported to the higherauthorities. Efforts were made to trace the original form of quotation.When it was not found, the matter was brought to the notice of theHhigher authorities.3. G.S. Mahto confessed that at the instance of M/s. B.S. Jhaalong with B.K. Mishra, he replaced the form of quotation/price bid anddestroyed the originals thereof so that the firm comes at L-1. Inquirywas initiated against them. The envelope containing the price bid of M/s. Laxmi Singh was also sent to the Central Forensic Institute, Bureauof Police Research & Development, Kolkata, vide letter dated 8.4.2002.The report established that the said envelop had been tampered with byopening and then resealing. Considering the fact that the envelopescontaining bid were kept in drawer of which duplicate key wasavailable with the respondent no.1, chargesheet was issued to him toexplain as to why departmental proceedings be not initiated against himfor changing the form of quotation/ price bid of M/s. Laxmi Singh toenable him to be L-1 in the tendering process. Simultaneously, chargesheetwas also issued to K.C. Patel for tampering with the quotation of pricebid of M/s. Laxmi Singh. Since the response to the show cause noticewas found to be unsatisfactory, departmental proceedings were initiatedagainst the respondent no.1 and K.C. Patel. In the Inquiry Report, theInquiry Officer opined that there was tampering with the bids. It wasfound that tampering was done in the case of tender of bidders M/s.Laxmi Singh and M/s. B.S. Jha. The changed form of quotation of M/s.Laxmi Singh contained the original signature of respondent no.1. Thecharges were proved. The report was forwarded to the DisciplinaryAuthority. Copy was sent to the respondent no.1 to enable him to makerepresentation. The respondent no.1 filed representation against theInquiry Report. After considering the same, the Disciplinary Authorityvide order dated 7.8.2003 imposed major penalty of withholding fiveannual increments with cumulative effect, effective from 1.1.2004. Toput the record straight, it is added that K.C. Patel was inflicted punishmentof reduction to lower grade. The appeal preferred by the respondentno.1 against the order of punishment was dismissed on 18.11.2003.Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed writ petition challenging the orderof Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, which wasdismissed by the learned Single Judge. However, in the intra-court appeal,the order of the Single Judge was reversed and the punishment imposedon the respondent no.1 was set aside. It is the aforesaid order which isimpugned in the present appeal.

4. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellantwas that in the matter of judicial review only scope for interference bythe High Court in the disciplinary proceedings is to see as to whether the

Adue process was followed during the course of inquiry and fair opportunitywas given to the employee concerned. Threadbare evidence could notbe examined, that too in an intra-court appeal, when the order ofpunishment and the appellate order were already upheld by the SingleBench of the High Court. It was case in which tampering in the pricebid was found to be fully established from the report of Central ForensicBInstitute, Bureau of Police Research & Development, Kolkata. Duringthe period tampering was done, the bid documents were lying in the jointcustody of the respondent no.1 and K.C. Patel. Most important partwas that on the changed form of quotation of M/s. Laxmi Singh, originalsignature of respondent no.1 was found. It was not possible unless heCwas involved. The order passed by the Division Bench was to be setaside.5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1submitted that the injustice done to the respondent no.1 was correctedby the Division Bench of the High Court. The appellants should not haveDany grievance against that. Merely because the duplicate key of thedrawer in which the bid documents were kept was with the respondentno.1, he cannot be made liable for any tampering or replacing of thebids. In fact, he has been made scapegoat by the other employees.The respondent no.1 is already suffering in the process for last morethan two decades. There is no error in the order passed by the DivisionEBench of the High Court. The appeal may be dismissed.

6. The facts of the case leading to the issuance of chargesheet,initiation of departmental inquiry, the report of the inquiry officer and thepunishment inflicted upon respondent no.1 have already been narratedin the preceding paragraphs. It is not in dispute that during the course ofFinquiry, fair opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent no.1at every stage. This was even found by the learned Single Judge whiledismissing the writ petition challenging the punishment inflicted uponhim. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Courtshows that matter was dealt with in manner as if it was the first stageGof the case, namely, the inquiry was being conducted and inquiry reportwas being prepared, which is not the scope in judicial review. The viewsexpressed by this Court on the scope of judicial review inDeputy GeneralManager (Appellate Authority) vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava1, areextracted below:

H1 (2021) 2 SCC 612

“24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the-constitutional courts, is evaluation of the decisionmakingprocess and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensurefairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings heldagainst the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent withthe rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutoryrules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusionor finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based onno evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as noreasonable person would have ever reached or where theconclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached bythe disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patenterror on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, awrit of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope ofjudicial review cannot be extended to the examination ofcorrectness or reasonableness of decision of authority as amatter of fact.

25-27xxxxxx

28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdictionof judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of theConstitution would not interfere with the findings of factarrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except ina case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is noevidence to support finding or where finding is such thatno man acting reasonably and with objectivity could havearrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidenceto support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental”authority, the same has to be sustained.

(emphasis supplied)

Similar view was expressed in the later judgment of this CourtinEx-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar vs. Union of India and Ors.[2]

7. If the facts of the case are examined in the light of the settledprinciples of law in scope of judicial review, we find that the DivisionBench of the High Court proceeded to reappreciate the entire evidence

Aas if conviction in criminal trial was being re-examined by the nexthigher court. The stand taken by the respondent no.1 was that he wason leave and there was no question of his tampering with any document.His contention was that merely because he had the duplicate key of thedrawer where the documents were kept, he cannot be made responsiblefor any tampering. However, there was no answer to the finding recordedBby the Inquiry Officer in the Inquiry Report, namely, that the changedform of quotation of M/s. Laxmi Singh contained original signature ofrespondent no.1. The fact that this “Form of quotation” was changed isnot in dispute. When the changed form of quotation also containedsignature of respondent no.1, it clearly established his involvement in theCtampering of document. This fact has not even been noticed by theDivision Bench of the High Court.

8. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. Theimpugned order dated 28.2.2019 passed by the Division Bench of theHigh Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1593/2015 is set aside and theDorder dated 25.6.2015 passed by the Single Judge in CWJC No. 2176/2004 is restored.

Nidhi Jain(Assisted by : Rakhi, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.