AJIT KUMAR NAG versus GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 314 · Decided: 19-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AJIT KUMAR NAG 
v. 
GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. 
AND ORS. 
B 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 
[S.N. VARIAVA, C.K. THAKKER AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
C 
Dismissal-Principles of natural Justice-Certified Standing Orders of 
Indian Oil Corporation-Clause (vi) of Standing Order 20-Validity-Appellant 
was a senior officer at the Haldia Refinery of JGC-Allegation that appellant 
led by a bunch of hooligans visited the Refinery Hospital and assaulted the 
CMG-General Manager of the Corporation dismissed him without holding 
D any inquiry exercising power under clause (vi) of Standing Order 20-Writ 
petition challenging the dismissal order dismissed by the High Court-Filed 
SLP to this Court-Also filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the 
constitutional validity of clause (vi) of Standing Order 20 as being violative 
of natural justice and Article I 4-Held, since sufficient safeguards have been 
provided in the Standing Orders, the same cannot be held arbitrary, 
E unreasonable, or ultra vires Article I 4 of the Constitution. 
Services-Dismissal without enquiry-Standing Order 20(vi)-Validity 
of action taken-Appellant found to have led a bunch of hooligans to Haldia 
Refinery Hospital and assaulting and abusing the Chief Medical Officer thereby 
creating terror-General Manager on going through the complaints of various 
p persons, satisfied that appellant indulged in the acts of violence without any 
valid reason or compelling circumstances or provocation-General Manager 
dispensed with the enquiry under Standing Order 20 (iii) and exercised power 
under Standing Order (vi) and passed the dismissal order-Acts of misconduct 
were found to be very grave and serious by the Appellate Authority also-
Held, exercise of power under Standing Order 20 (vi) in the circumstances, 
G cannot be held to be arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide and does not 
require interference in the exercise of power of judicial review by the Court. 
Standing Order 20 (vi)-Constitutional validity-Article 14-Standing 
Order 20 clause (vi) permits dismissal without enquiry on satisfaction of the 
General Manager about expediency of not keeping a workman in service-
I-1 
314 
l 
i 
NIT KUMAR NAGv. GEN. MAN., INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD. 
3 J 5 
Plea that it is a drastic provision which totally excludes application of natural A 
justice that too on the satisfaction of General Manager-Held, a provision 
cannot be declared arbitrary, ultra vires or unconstitutional merely because 
there is possibility of abuse or misuse of such power. 
Article 31 I-Civil servant-Employees of a corporation-Held, cannot 
be said to be holding a civil post under the Union or a State and not entitled B 
to protection of Article 311. 
Disciplinary action-Appellant acquitted of criminal charges by the 
Court-Held, the said order would not debar the employer from taking action 
in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. 
Res judicata-Applicability-Appel/ant had not challenged the vires of 
clause (vij of Standing Order 20 before the High Court-Held, could still be 
permitted to argue the case on the vires or validity of clause (vij. 
c 
Appellant dismissed from service without enquiry by the General D 
Manager in exercise of power under clause (vi) of Standing Order 20. The 
Appellate Authority also found the acts of misconduct very grave and 
serious. The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the 
dismissal order. Hence, appeal to this court. Appellant also filed a writ 
petition under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of clause 
W 
E 
Appellant, inter alia, contended that even though the provisions of 
Article 311 do not apply to him being an employee of the corporation, the 
general principles behind it would apply to the employees of the 
Corporation also. He also submitted that the Corporation being the State 
within the meaning of Article 12, Article 14 would apply to it and an order F 
passed arbitrary and without complying with the principles of natural 
justice must be held null and void. It was also submitted that clause (vi) 
of Standing Order 20 is arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable. 
Dismissing the appeal and the petition, the Court 
HELD : 1. In view of the various pronouncements of the Court, there 
is no doubt that the respondent Corporation is right in submitting that 
the appellant cannot invoke Article 311 by describing him as holding 'civil 
post' under the Union or a State. Article 311 of the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.