THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS versus AJIT KUMAR SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 447 · Decided: 17-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
447
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 447
447
THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS.
v.
AJIT KUMAR SINGH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023)
MAY 17, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Service Law: Disciplinary proceedings – Scope of judicial
review – Bid tampering matter, wherein disciplinary proceedings
initiated against two employees – Order of imposition of major
penalty of withholding five annual increments against the
respondent no. 1 and punishment of reduction to a lower grade
against the other employee – Order of punishment against the
respondent no.1 upheld by the appellate authority as also the Single
Judge of the High Court – However, the punishment imposed set
aside by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: During the course
of inquiry, fair opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
respondent no.1 at every stage – This was even found by the Single
Judge – However, the Division Bench of the High Court dealt with
in a manner as if it was the first stage of the case, namely, the
inquiry was being conducted and inquiry report was being prepared,
which is not the scope in judicial review – Division Bench of the
High Court proceeded to reappreciate the entire evidence – When
the changed form of quotation also contained signature of
respondent no.1, it clearly established his involvement in the
tampering of document – Division Bench of the High Court failed
to notice the same, thus, the order passed by the Division Bench set
aside and that of the Single Judge restored – Judicial review.
Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) vs. Ajai
Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612; Ex-Const/Dvr
Mukesh Kumar Raigar vs. Union of India and Ors.
(2023) SCC Online SC 27 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2021) 2 SCC 612
referred to
Para 6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.3663 of
2023.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
448
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 1593 of 2015 in CWJ No. 2176 of
2004.
V. N. Koura, Mrs. Paramjeet Benipal, Sirish Kumar, Avneesh
Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham for M/s. Arputham Aruna and Co.,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Navaniti Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv., Vaibhav Niti, Ms. Sayaree Basu
Mallik, Md. Madhavi Agrawal, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1593/2015 dated
28.2.2019, the present appeal has been filed. Vide aforesaid order, the
judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated
25.6.2015 in CWJC No. 2176/2004 was reversed.
2. The brief facts as available on record are that on 30.6.2001,
tender notice was issued by the Appellant Corporation for the job of
‘Repair of Surface Drain and Tank Pad and Tank No. 235, 236 and 237
inside Refinery’ (Barauni Refinery), in which three bidders participated.
Technical bids were opened on 24.8.2001. However, the price bids were
not opened on that day and were kept with the remarks ‘not opened
today’ in the table drawer of K.C. Patel under lock. The keys thereof
were available with him and respondent no.1, Ajit Kumar Singh. Price
bids were opened on 1.10.2001. Form of quotation submitted by each
bidder was signed by K.C. Patel and G.S. Mahto. Entries were made in
the register. While preparing the comparative table on 3.10.2001 K.C.
Patel noticed change in the price bid of M/s. B.S. Jha as compared to
the quoted price in the form of quotation, which was recorded on
1.10.2001. The signatures of K.C. Patel were missing in the changed
form of quotation of price bid of M/s. B.S. Jha. There was over-writing
in the quoted percentage wherein digit ‘9’ in the figure of ‘9.6’ was
over-written as ‘5’. M/s. B.S. Jha, who was the second lowest bidder
(L-2) when the price bids were opened on 1.10.2001, was found to be
the lowest bidder (L-1). The matter was not reported to the higher
authorities. Efforts were made to trace the original form of quotation.
When it was not found, the matter was brought to the notice of the
higher authorities.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
449
3. G.S. Mahto confessed that at the instance of M/s. B.S. Jha
along with B.K. Mishra, he replaced the form of quotation/price bid and
destroyed the originals thereof so that the firm comes at L-1. Inquiry
was initiated against them. The envelope containing the price bid of M/
s. Laxmi Singh was also sent to the Central Forensic Institute, Bureau
of Poli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.