Title: The authority of High Courts is only to look upon whether the fair commencement of disciplinary action has taken place and proper procedure is been followed or not appeal against the order passed by Patna Judicature on 28.2.2019.

Case Name: The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. v Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr.

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023

Court: In The Supreme Court Of India , Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Judge: Shri Rajesh Bindal, Justice

Decided On: May  17, 2023

Case Laws:

• 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

Brief Facts Of The Case:

1.     On 30/6/2001 the appellant issued a notice inviting the tender for the ‘Repair of Surface Drain and Tank Pad and Tank No.235, 236 and 237 inside Refinery’ (Barauni Refinery), in which three bidders participated.

2.     Technical bids were opened on but the price bids were kept locked in the drawer of K.C patel and one key of the drawer was with respondent no 1. Ajit Kumar.

3.     The submitted quotation was signed by K.C. Patel and G.S. Mahto. And respective entries were made in the register maintained.

4.     While preparing the comparative table K.C Patel noticed overwriting over the figures by M/s. B.S. Jha and there was a change in the signature of K.C. Patel and G.S. Mahto.

5.     Because his price bids were the second lowest but when they were opened in the procedure they were found to be the lowest prices quoted.

6.     The matter was not reported to higher authorities but a constant effort has been made to trace the original prices quoted. When nothing was found matter was then reported to the higher authorities.

7.     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 so that his prices comes to the lowest prices   Inquiry was initiated against them.

8.     When the envelope went to the Forensic department that reported that tampering has been made with the Envelope by opening and resealing them.

9.     On this basis charge sheet was filed against MR K.C Patel and Mr. Ajit Kumar asking for the reason why departmental proceedings were not initiated against them

10.  In this case the inquiry officer opined that tampering with the documents of M/S Laxmi was also been made.

11.  After making the representation and the completion of the proceedings Disciplinary committee held that withholding five annual increments with cumulative effect, effective from 1.1.2004 of Mr. Ajit Kumar and K.C. Patel was inflicted punishment of reduction to a lower grade.

12.  The appeal was been filed by Mr. Ajit Kumar and was been dismissed at all the stages.

Issue

Ø  High Court has made unexpected interference by looking into the evidence of the case presented during proceedings of the Disciplinary committee the High Court that too in the intra-court appeal only have a right to look into the fair procedure not into the matter.

Ø  The learned Counsel on behalf of Mr. Ajit Kumar pleaded that just because Mr. Ajit had the Duplicate key of the drawer does not mean that he had done the tampering with the Documents he is already been suffering the effects of the decision hence it should be dismissed.

       Ratio

·       Proper procedure for the disciplinary action, fair decision was been made hence there is no scope for the judicial review.

·        The court opined that the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

·       If the facts of the case are examined in the light of the settled principles of law in scope of judicial review, we find that the Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to reappreciate the entire evidence as if conviction in a criminal trial was being re-examined by the next higher court.

·       When the tampering was been made Mr. Ajit Kumar was on leave hence there is no chance that he can made the Tampering.

·       There is nothing mentioned in the inquiry report regarding the contained original signature of Mr. Ajit Kumar  The fact that this “Form of quotation” was changed is not in dispute.

·       And it clearly establishes the involvement of Mr Ajit Kumar in the tampering.

        Held

For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed The impugned order dated 28.2.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the order dated 25.6.2015 passed by the Single Judge in is restored.