INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. versus ASHOK KUMAR ARORA

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 980 · Decided: 05-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
ASHOK KUMAR ARORA 
FEBRUARY 5, 1997 
[J.S. VERMA, S.C. SEN AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law-Departmental Enquiries-Jurisdiction of High Court to 
inteifer~Scope of 
C 
Misconduct-Act of procuring false medical certificates and medical 
bills and making reimbursement claims--Moneta1y loss to Indian Oil Cor-
poration-Responden4 Senior Stenographer in the Corporation was held 
inst1Umental in cheating or committing forgery of medical bills for himself 
and also for other employees-Dismissal from service-Held, justified. 
D 
The respondent, a Senior Stenographer in the appellant company, 
was identified in a vigilance enquiry as the organiser and the principal 
man behind a racket of employees of the Corporation presenting false • 
medical bills and getting them reimbursed from the Corporation. He was 
charge sheeted for gross acts of misconduct. The Inquiry Officer found the 
E respondent guilty and the Corporation on perusal of the report of the 
Enquiry Officer passed an order dismissing the respondent from service 
of the Corporation. The Writ Petitions filed by the respondent were allowed 
by the High Court, holding the order imposing the punishment of dismiss-
al of the respondent as w;trnlly arbitrary. Hence these appeals. 
F 
The appellant urged that the High Court committed a serious juris-
dictional error as it could not have reappreciated the evidence adduced 
by the parties during domestic enquiry and interferred with the findings 
recorded by the Enquiry Officer and affirmed by the Disciplinary Authority 
as the High Court cannot sit over the findings of the Enquiry Oflicer as 
G an Appellate Court/Authority. 
The respondent submitted that the Enquiry Officer had totally mis-
construed the record and erroneously found him guilty of the charges 
levelled against him as there was no sufficient material before the Enquiry 
Officer to hold him guilty of misconduct, and that the High Court had 
H rightly interferred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, there being 
980 
-l .,.-
INDIAN OILCORPN. LTD. v. ASHOKKR.ARORA 
981 
patent discrimination while awarding the extreme penalty of dismissal A 
) 
against him whereas other employees were let off"ith minor punishments. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : The High Court in cases of departmental enquiries and the 
findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate 
Court/ Authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very 
limited for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated 
because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of 
reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and or the 
punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an 
employee. The Enquiry Officer on appraisal of the materials before him 
held that the respondent was actively involved and a brain behind procur-
ing false medical certificates and medical bills not only for himself but also 
B 
c 
for other employees and on the basis of which the reimbursement claims 
were made by the respondent and other employees. The Corporation D 
1 
,;, 
sanctioned these reimbursement claims of the various employees which 
had resulted into monetary loss to the Corporation. Before the Enquiry 
Officer except the respondent other employees of the Corporation ad-
mitted the charges and consequently a minor penalty was awarded to them. 
The respondent contested the charges levelled against him and denied that 
he was instrumental in cheating or committing forgery of the medical bills. E 
On consideration of report and findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Dis-
ciplinary Authority took a lenient view in respect of other employees. 
Having regard to the involvement of the respondent in the entire episode, 
the Disciplinary Authority awarded him the penalty of dismissal from 
~ J. 
· service. The order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority F 
against the respondent was also affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 
Curiously enough, the High Court in its impugned judgment compared the 
case of the respondent with the other employees who had been awarded a 
lesser penalty and opined that there was discrimination resorted to by the 
Disciplinary Authority in the matter of awarding the punishment. It was 
this action of the Disciplinary Authority in awarding the penalty being G 
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The H

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