AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Goda Raghuram, J.—The petitioner assails the 1st respondent''s proceedings No.IR/1461/(S-78) dated 13-2-1996, imposing on him the penalty of lowering his basic pay by two stages, in the circumstances which will be adverted to later.
Mr. Amancherla Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 being the Indian Oil Corporation and its various designated officers, raises a threshold objection as to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this writ petition. It is contended that no part of the cause of action leading to the orders impugned in this writ petition having arisen within the territory of this Court, this writ petition is not maintainable. It is the admitted scenario that the petitioner was at the time of the alleged offence an employee of the Indian Oil Corporation working at Bidar in Karnataka State and that the impugned order has been issued by the 1st respondent in Mnmbai. It is also an admitted fact that the disciplinary enquiry was held at Secunderabad, which undisputedly is within the territorial ambit of this Court. Be that as it may, even on the admitted factual parameters the respondents'' Counsel contends that since the disciplinary enquiry is neither per se nor sui generis capable of leading to an order of penalty and since the report of the enquiry officer pursuant to a disciplinary proceedings needs application of mind and approval of the disciplinary authority before it gets translated into an order imposing the penalty, the mere factum of the conduct of disciplinary proceedings within the territory of this Court cannot be said to constitute a bundle of facts which, if proved, would give rise to the cause of action entitling the petitioner for a relief. The principle is not in dispute and the principle is that some part of the cause of action should have been arisen within the territory of a Court, to endow it with jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. The meaning of the expression ''cause of action'' is also no longer in doubt. Platitudinous as it may appear, necessity requires that the definition of the expression ''cause of action'' be reiterated as expressed in Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and Others, viz., "cause of Action means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court." The hyper-technical distinction between substantive bundle of facts and insubstantive bundle of facts is alien to the ''cause of action'' rubric to identify the Court having jurisdiction over a particular lis. Even if a part of the cause of action arises the Court would have jurisdiction over the lis. In the facts on hand admittedly the disciplinary proceedings have occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court Disciplinary proceedings in the context of the service of an employee and in the specific context of a challenge to an penalty consequent on such disciplinary proceedings, are in my view, a substantial component of cause of action and that having arisen within the territory of this Court, this Court docs clearly have jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.
Coming to the merits of the case regarding the validity or otherwise of the impugned order of penalty, the relevant facts are as under:
(a) On 14-7-1995 the petitioner was issued a charge memo, which reads as under:
"1. It is alleged that you have committed the following acts of omission and commission. The circumstances alleged against you are narrated below:
Charges:
(i) That upon receipt of complaints dated 17-4-1995, 20-4-1995 and 26-4-1995, which you addressed to the Executive Director, Southern Region, Executive Director, Southern Region constituted a committee consisting of the following to carry out necessary investigation.
(a) Shri K.M. Krishna Kumar, Ch.HRD Mgr, SR and
(b) Shri T. Jayakumar, Manager (Avn), SR
(ii) That the said Committee advised you to produce the file containing the original indents, which you had kept in your custody without the knowledge of the Location In-charge. You instead of co-operating with them insisted an clear acknowledgment from the committee. You did not produce the file containing the original indents inspite of repeated advice by the Committee.
(iii)That in pursuance of ED SR''s instruction, Sr. Station Manager, Bidar AFS advised you vide reference No. AV:PST:CON dated 16-5-1995 to return the file containing original IAF indents for fuel supplied in barrels to the signor. You did not comply with this advice and continued to keep the file in your custody unauthorisedly.
(iv)That you were once again advised telegraphically to return the file to Sr. Station Manager, Begumpet, whereupon you took the photo copies of the documents in the file and asked Sr. Station Manager, Begumpet to put his acknowledgment on every copy, which was refused by Sr. Station Manager, Begumpet. You continue to keep the office file containing original indents in your custody unauthorisedly.
In view of above, you have allegedly committed the following acts of misconduct:
i. Wilful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of your superior.
ii. Disorderly or indecent behaviour in the premises of the Corporation or outside such premises where such behaviour is related to or connected with the employment.
iii. Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour.
iv. Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation.
You are hereby required to submit your written explanation within seven days of the receipt of this charge-sheet. Your written explanation in this connection will be taken into consideration by the undersigned.
Please acknowledge receipt on the sub-joined form.
Sd/- General Manager (Aviation)" (b) By this communication dated 3-8-1995 the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges and requesting that he be exonerated therefrom and also that his suspension be revoked.
(c) A disciplinary enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted a report which was communicated to the petitioner under the cover of communication dated 11-1-1996. The covering Memo dated 11-1-1996 of the 1st respondent states that the said respondent has applied his mind to the disciplinary case against the petitioner, the enquiry proceedings and the findings of the Enquiry Committee, noticed that the Enquiry Committee has found the petitioner guilty of wilful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable orders of superior and commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour, and states is conclusion that having taken all the aspects into consideration, the 1st respondent proposes to inflict upon the petitioner the punishment, which has ultimately been inflicted by the order impugned.
(d) The enquiry report after virtually extracting the charges and the summary of evidence sets out an analysis of the documentary evidence and that of the depositions of the witnesses, all of which are not seriously in dispute. The findings of the Enquiry Committee are however, relevant and they are extracted in extenso since they bear analysis by this Court:
"Findings of the EC:
From the above analysis, it clearly emerges that the CSE refused to handover the IAF slips to the Committee appointed by ED or to SSM/ Bidar AFS despite repeated requests. Therefore the charge of wilful insubordination and disobedience of any lawful or reasonable orders of superior is proved beyond doubt.
This is also amounts to an act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour.
However the EC feels that PO was not been able to prove how the above act of CSE amounts to indecent behaviour or disorderly behaviour. The EC is inclined to believe that the act of refusal to part with the IAF slips on the part of CSE was to preserve the evidence for proving the allegation against the SSM/Bidar AFS. PO has not been able to bring out anything to prove that there was mala fide intention on the part of CSE to tarnish the image of corporation. Moreover, through out the proceedings it emerges that the CSE was wilting to handover the original IAF slips but did not do so since the committee appointed by ED and SSM/Bidar AFS were not willing to give any acknowledgment. Moreover the CSE had handed over (he original IAF slips to Sr. APIM/Begumpet AFS once the acknowledgment of receipt was given to him. Therefore, the Enquiry Committee feels that it will be too harsh to presume that the CSE had wilfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation, Natural justice will not be given to CSE if the above act is construed to be indecent or dis-orderly behaviour within the premises or outside the premises of the Corporation."
(e) To the said proposal the petitioner submitted an elaborate response dated 3-2-1996, which did not commend itself to the 1st respondent and the impugned orders were issued, which are assailed herein.
What is the misconduct that has been committed by the petitioner warranting the imposition of the penalty that has been imposed? In the petitioner''s contention he had in his possession certain material which would go to show that expensive aviation turbile fuel was being misutilised for purposes far remote from any reasonable purpose that the expensive commodity can be put to viz., towards the consumption in the Air Force mess as fuel for cooking. The petitioner''s concern for public weal might have been misconceived. May be in the consideration of the respondents that was the substantive purpose for which aviation turbile fuel ought to be used. But that is not the allegation against the petitioner. He is alleged to have declined to part with the material viz., requisition slips to an Enquiry Committee constituted pursuant to a report/ complaint of the petitioner, without an acknowledgment of the petitioner having handed over that material to the Enquiry Committee. This conduct, in the view of this Court, is an entirely rational conduct of a reasonable and prudent man who intends to safeguard his own or the nation''s interest. The insistence by the respondents that the petitioner should part with those documents without even an acknowledgment does not, in my view, constitute either a lawful or reasonable order of a superior. Such insistence is an insistence that the petitioner indulge in an irrational behaviour or conduct. The conduct of the petitioner in declining to part with the material in his possession without acknowledgment ought on no account be termed as insubordination. His refusal is not a refusal to hand over per se but a refusal to hand over without an acknowledgment. Even the Enquiry Committee was unable to pursuade itself to find the petitioner guilty of the other species of extravagant charges framed against the petitioner by the respondents such as indecent behaviour and the like. The evidence on record in the case does prove beyond a pale of doubt that the petitioner declined to hand over the documents without an acknowledgment in that behalf. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether such conduct constitutes misconduct as charged and found. The respondent-Corporation is an instrumentality of the State and it is ordained to confirm in its conduct to all Constitutional and Public Law injunctions including the injunctions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution against arbitrary conduct. The identification of misconduct from the package of facts alleged is an area of value choice that has to confirm to the Constitutional injunctions of fair and reasonable conduct. In the context of the facts on hand, the I refusal by the petitioner to part with the documents in his possession without | receiving an acknowledgment for the same, cannot be characterised as misconduct by any authority obligated to act constitutionally. The charge itself is thus irrational and misconceived and no penalty can enure from any such allegation. The impugned order is, therefore, clearly erroneous and requires invalidation. The impugned order dated 13-2-1996 of the 1st respondent is accordingly set aside.
In the totality of circumstances this Court finds (1) that the writ petition is maintainable and this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues arising in this writ petition, and (2) that the impugned order of the 1st respondent No.IR/ 1461/(S-78), dated 13-2-1996 is invalid and is accordingly set aside.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.