In a writ petition, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the challenge against penalty orders imposed by Oil India Limited for negligence causing financial loss, holding no grounds for interference under Article 226.
The instant writ petition stands dismissed for lack of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010007292011
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4036/2011
AJIT KUMAR KHATONIAR GENERAL MANAGER T and D, OIL INDIA LTD, DULIAJAN,
VERSUS
OIL INDIA LIMITED and ORS PLOT NO. 19, SECTOR - 16A, NOIDA, U.P., PIN-201301, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR,
2:THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR CMD
OIL INDIA LTD PLOT NO. 19 SECTOR -16A NOIDA PIN-201301
3:CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION REP. BY THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER SATARKTA BHAWAN GPO COMPLEX INA NEW DELHI-110023
4:UNION OF INDIA
REP.BY THE SECY. MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE LEGISLATIVE DEPTT NEW DELHI PIN-11000
For the Petitioner(s) : None appears
Page No.# 2/6
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Kalita, Advocate
: Ms. G. Swami, Advocate
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Date : 01-08-2023
Page No.# 3/6
by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Respondent Company thereby imposing a minor penalty of withholding of promotion for 2 (two) years. The Petitioner being aggrieved has preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors vide an order dated 25.05.2009 rejected the Petitioner’s appeal. The Petitioner therefore preferred a review before the Board of Directors. The said review proceedings was also dropped vide an order dated 18.08.2010. It is under such circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 15.02.2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the order dated 25.05.2009 passed by the Board of Directors in Appeal as well as the order dated 18.08.2010 whereby the review so filed by the Petitioner was also rejected.
Page No.# 4/6
stated that there was no loss to the company and the supplier did not derive any benefit whatsoever arising out of his actions. On the question of proportionality of the punishment, it was the case of the Petitioner that the punishment so imposed was disproportionate to the charges so proved inasmuch as the punishment of stoppage of promotion by 2 (two) years over the left over service period of about 3 (three) years 6 (six) months at the end of the Petitioner’s career was the hardest amongst the 5 Officers alleged for receipt/issue of defective pipes. It was further submitted that in respect of other officers, the punishments ranged from censure to only one year stoppage of promotion. It was further the case of the Petitioner that the Memo of Charges were served upon the Petitioner on 29.09.2005 and the report of the domestic enquiry was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority on 20.12.2006. The punishment was imposed upon the Petitioner on 15.02.2008 i.e. almost after 13 months and this delay has greatly affected the Petitioner’s chances of promotion for no fault of the petitioner but was purely for administrative delays.
Page No.# 5/6
submitted that the Petitioner herein was afforded all reasonable opportunities by the Inquiring Authority and in respect to the charges which have been proved against the Petitioner, only a minor punishment have been imposed. Referring to the Charge No.3, the learned counsel submitted that on account of the Petitioner who was the Head of the Department in question, the Respondent Oil Company had to suffer a loss to the tune of Rs.1,10,51,204.63p. He further submitted that there is no perversity in the said findings and as such the question of any interference to the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 15.02.2008 as well as the Appellate order and the review order does not arise.
Page No.# 6/6
Authority had duly afforded the reasonable opportunities to the Petitioner and there is a clear finding that on account of Petitioner’s negligence and acting beyond his authority without taking the specific permission from the Respondent Company, a Third Party Agent was appointed for which the Respondent Oil Company had to suffer a loss of amount of Rs.1,10,51,204.63p. It is further seen that the Petitioner has been only imposed a minor punishment of withholding two promotions.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition should be dismissed due to lack of merit.
Whether the penalties imposed on the petitioner were arbitrary and unreasonable.
AJIT KUMAR KHATONIAR
OIL INDIA LIMITED
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION
UNION OF INDIA
DEVASHIS BARUAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
