BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS versus ANIL PADEGAONKAR

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 201 · Decided: 17-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
201
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION
LIMITED AND OTHERS
v.
ANIL PADEGAONKAR
(Civil Appeal No. 9778 of 2010)
MARCH 17, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
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 charge-
sheet 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 charge-
sheet is set aside – Service Law.
   [2020] 5 S.C.R. 201
201
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
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 ; Chairmen-
cum-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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
203
Case Law Reference
[2008] 7 SCR 1157
referred to
Para 6
[2013] 8 SCR 988
referred to
Para 6
[2013] 14 SCR 185
referred to
Para 7
[2011] 5 SCR 44
referred to
Para 8
(2003) 7 SCALE 122
referred

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