DIRECTOR (MKT.) INDIAN OIL CORP. LTD. AND ANR. versus SANTOSH KUMAR

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 880 · Decided: 23-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DIRECTOR (MKT.) INDIAN OIL CORP. LTD. AND ANR. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
v. 
SANTOSH KUMAR 
MAY 23, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Disciplinary proceeding-Penalty of dismissal from service--Affirmation 
of by Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authoril)r-Writ Petition--Orders 
of the Authorities set aside by High Court on the ground of non-application 
of mind-On appeal, held: The orders of the Authorities set aside and matter 
remitted to Disciplinary Authority for fresh disposal. 
Respondent-employee was charge-sheeted by the appellant-
employer. Enquiry Officer found him guilty of 6 out of 8 charges and 
proposed to inflict penalty of dismissal. Disciplinary Authority agreed 
with the findings of Enquiry Officer and ordered for inflicting of penalty 
of 'dismissed' as a measure of disciplinary action against him. The 
appeal of the employee was rejected by Appellate Authority. Employee 
filed writ Petition alleging that Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate 
Authority had mechanically passed the orders affirming the penalty. 
High Court allowing the Writ Petition set aside the orders of Disciplinary 
Authority and Appellate Authority on the ground of non-application of 
mind and directed reinstatement with continuity and all consequential 
benefits. Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority 
would only reveal the total non-application of mind by the Appellate 
Authority. Therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority 
and the Appellate Authority are set aside and matter is remitted for 
fresh disposal to the Disciplinary Authority. (884-G-H, 885-AI 
2. The direction issued by the High Court ordering re-instatement 
H 
into service with continuity in service and all consequential benefits is 
880 
DIRECTOR (Ml<T.) INDIAN OIL CORP. 1•. SANTOSH KUMAR [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
881 
also set aside. [885-C) 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 6979 of 
2004. 
From the Judgment/Order dated 3.2.2003 of the High Court of Punjab 
and Haryana at Chandigarh in W.P. No. 11144/2000. 
B 
Jagat Arora, Rajat Arora and Rajiv Nanda, Advs. for the Appellants. 
Manjit Singer, H.K. Kataria and Kamal Mohan Gupta, Advs., for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : Director (Marketing) and General 
Manager (Operations), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. are the appellants before 
us. The respondent is a dismissed employee of the Appellant-Corporation. 
The respondent joined the appellant - Indian Oil Corporation Limited 
(hereinafter referred to as "The Corporation") in the year 1987., He was 
posted as Assistant Manager (Operation) at Hissar Depot of the Corporation 
in the year 1995. He was charge-sheeted on account of irregular supply of 
High Speed Diesel to the purchasers without following the procedure. The 
incident happened at Hissar Depot and 12 KL of High Speed Diesel was 
supplied twice from 17.6.1996 to 19.6.1996 against the same challan by the 
respondent. A charge-sheet was issued to the respondent. Eight charges were 
framed against the respondent. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report 
which is available at page 26 to 40 of the paper book. The Enquiry Officer 
found the respondent guilty of charge Nos. 1,4,5,6,7 and 8. The other charges 
have not been proved. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings 
of the Enquiry Officer after taking into all aspects of the case into 
consideration. The Enquiry Officer proposed to inflict upon the respondent 
the major penalty of "dis.missal;' as a measure of disciplinary action against 
him. All papers relating to this case, in respect of respondent, were placed 
before General Manager (Operations), CDA for his perusal and orders. The 
Disciplinary Authority after perusing the records and the replies submitted 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
to the show cause notice together with all papers relating to the disciplinary 
proceedings and after applying· his mind ordered for inflicting upon the 
respondent the penalty of "dismissal" as a measure of disciplinary action 
against him. The period of suspension of respondent wa~, however, treated 
H 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A as suspenswn only. 
An appeal was filed against the order of penalty of "dismissal". The 
Disciplinary Authority placed all the papers relating to the case before the 
Director (Marketing), Appellate Authority f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.