2007 (8) TMI 766 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the domestic inquiry and findings of guilt.
2. Role and responsibility of the respondent in the alleged misconduct.
3. Authority of the Division Bench to re-appreciate evidence in domestic inquiries.
4. Abandonment of the plea of perversity by the respondent's counsel.

Summary:

1. Legality of the domestic inquiry and findings of guilt:

The respondent, while working as Deputy General Manager (POL-Marketing) in Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited, was charge-sheeted for serious misconduct. The charges included dishonestly recommending the purchase of land, appointing a valuer without due process, and engaging a firm without tendering. A regular inquiry was initiated, and the Inquiry Officer found all charges proved. The disciplinary authority then reverted the respondent to a lower grade. The respondent challenged this in the Guwahati High Court, claiming the inquiry was perverse and illegal. The Division Bench set aside the disciplinary authority's order, leading to the present appeal.

2. Role and responsibility of the respondent in the alleged misconduct:

The charges against the respondent were based on his actions as part of various committees. The Supreme Court noted that the decisions were joint and involved multiple members, not just the respondent. The Court found that the respondent alone was unfairly targeted, while the decisions were collective. The Court emphasized that the respondent's preliminary report on land price was not binding and the final price was negotiated by the Price Negotiation Committee.

3. Authority of the Division Bench to re-appreciate evidence in domestic inquiries:

The Additional Solicitor General argued that the Division Bench acted as an appellate authority by re-appreciating evidence, which is not permissible. However, the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench correctly assessed the situation, noting that the respondent was made a scapegoat for collective decisions. The Court stated that if the committee's decision was flawed, all members should be held accountable, not just the respondent.

4. Abandonment of the plea of perversity by the respondent's counsel:

The Additional Solicitor General contended that the respondent's counsel had abandoned the plea of perversity before the Single Judge, and it should not have been raised again before the Division Bench. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the writ appeal is a continuation of the original writ petition, and the Division Bench was right to consider the plea of perversity. The Court found that the approach of making the respondent solely responsible was indeed perverse.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Division Bench's decision to quash the disciplinary authority's order. The Court emphasized that the respondent was unfairly singled out for collective decisions, and the findings of the Inquiry Officer were not sustainable.