CHAIRMAN & M.D., BHARAT PET. CORPN. LTD. AND ORS. versus T.K. RAJU

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 519 · Decided: 24-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
CHAIRMAN & M.D., BHARAT PET. CORPN. LTD. AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
T.K. RAJU 
FEBRUARY 24, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
SERVICE LAW: 
Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for the Management Staff of Bharat C 
Petroleum Ltd.-Rules 4 and 22 of Part II read with Clauses 4, 6, 20, 22, 31 
and 37 of Rule A of Part Ill-Dismissal from service-On complaint of financial 
irregularities-Writ Petition-Remission of the matter by Single Judge of High 
Court to appellate authority for imposing appropriate punishment as 
punishment was disproportionate to the charges-Division Bench holding that 
some of the charges being vague no punishment could be imposed on that D 
basis-However, upholding the guilt of the delinquent remitting the matter to 
appellate authority for imposing proportionate punishment-On appeal, held: 
Quantum of punishment was not disproportionate-The charge was not framed 
in terms of the Rules alone. which were held to be vague. 
Judicial Review-Scope of-Jn matters of quantum of punishment-Held: 
scope of judicial review is limited in such matters-Court does not interfere 
in such cases in a routine manner. 
Words and Phrases : 
E 
F 
~ 
'Misconduct '-Meaning of 
Respondent was a Sales Officer with the appellants. The office of the 
appellants received complaints against the respondent alleging financial 
. irregularities on the part of the respondent. Charges were framed against 
the respondent in terms of Rules 4 and 22 of Part II read with Clauses 4, G 
6, 20, 22, 31 and 37of Rule A Part Ill of the Conduct, Discipline and 
Appeal Rules for the Management Staff, Disciplinary proceedings were 
'1 · 
initiated and he was found guilty. Punishment of dismissal from service 
was imposed. The statutory appeal of the respondent was dismissed. In 
.· .. Writ Petition, Single Judge of the High Court held that the quantum of H 
519 
520 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A punishment was disproportionate to the charges of misconduct and hence 
remitted the matter to appellate authority for imposing appropriate 
; 
punishment. Cross appeals to the Division Bench of High Court were 
disposed of holding that in the light of the legal principle that when a penal 
provision is vague, it devices the equal protection of law guaranteed under 
B Article 14 of the constitution; by placing reliance on Clause 4 of Part II 
of the Rules, the impugned order was held to be vitiated. However, it 
confirmed the finding of the guilt and remitted the matter to the appellate 
authority to take decision to impose penalty except the penalty of dismissal 
or removal from service. 
c 
In appeal to this court appellants contended that High Court 
committed a factual error in coming to the conclusion that order of 
dismissal was passed in terms of Rule 4 of the Rul1es. 
Respondent contended that extreme punishment of dismissal was not 
D 
justified in view of the fact that two of the eight charges were not proved. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l. The respondent admittedly was not only charged under 
clause (4) of Part Ill of the Rules , he was also charged for various other 
E misconducts enumerated in different clauses of Pa rt II thereof. The High 
Court, therefore, was not justified in proceeding with the matter on the 
premise that some of the charges against the Respondent had been framerl 
only in terms of clause (4) of Part II of the Rules and that since some of 
the charges were vague and indefinite, punishment could have been 
imposed on the basis thereof. It cannot be said: that the quantum of 
F punishment was wholly disproportionate to the charges levelled against 
the Respondent. [526-D-El 
t 
Mis. Glaxo Laboratories (L) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 
Meerut and Ors., AIR (1984) SC 1361 and A.L. Katra v. The Project and 
G 
Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., AIR (1984) SC 1361, distinguished. 
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex Constable, (19921 4 SCC 
54; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (19941 3 SCC 569; Probodh Kumar 
Bhowmick v. University of Calcutta and Ors., (1994) 2 C.L.J. 456; Tara Chand 
~ 
v. Union of India and Ors., CWP 5552 /2000 disposed of on 27th August, 
'(' 
H 2002 by Delhi High Court; Secretary to Govemmem and Ors. v. A.C.J. Britto, 
..... 
-~ 
' 
-~ 
; 
·1 
CHAIRMAN & M.D .. BHARAT PET. CORPN. LTD. v. T.K. RAJU [SINHA, J.] 
521 
(1997( 3 SCC 387 and Noratanmal Chouraria v. MR. Murli and Anr., (2004( A 
5 sec 689, referred to. 
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 

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