BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. ANIL PADEGAONKAR
LAWS(SC)-2020-3-54
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 17,2020

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
Anil Padegaonkar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

NAVIN SINHA,J. - (1.) The two appeals have been preferred by the appellant Corporation and the respondentemployee respectively, to the extent that they are aggrieved by the common order in a writ appeal preferred by the Corporation. They have thus been heard together and are being disposed by a common order.
(2.) The Corporation is aggrieved to the extent the impugned order sets aside the order of punishment on the ground that the chargesheet had not been issued by the disciplinary authority. The employee is aggrieved by the grant of liberty to the Corporation for issuance of fresh chargesheet, and denial of back wages while granting reinstatement. In the interregnum, the employee has attained the age of superannuation in February 2018.
(3.) A chargesheet was issued to the employee on 31.12.1993 by the Deputy General Manager (Aviation) (hereinafter referred to as "the DGM") while he was working on the post of Aviation Officer at the General Aviation Service Station, Gwalior, in the management cadre in Job Group "A". It was alleged that fresh sand particles had been found in the all 10 fuel tanks after his duty hours in the 'C' shift ended while the earlier inspection during the 'B' shift had found it to be free of dirt and water except for minor traces of water in tank nos. 3 and 9. While the departmental proceedings were pending, a fresh chargesheet was issued to the employee on 27.09.1994 with regard to absence from duty on 13.08.1994. The employee was therefore charged with having acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation and negligence in the performance of duty including malingering or slowing down of work under Clause 6 & 10 of Part IIIA of the Bharat Petroleum Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management Staff, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Pursuant to a domestic inquiry, the inquiry officer returned a finding of guilt on 06.01.1995. The employee was furnished a copy of the report and after consideration of his reply, the Director (Marketing) under Part IIIB (2)(f) of the Rules by a common order dated 21.05.1997 'discharged' the employee from service. The departmental appeal under the Rules was rejected by a reasoned order by the Chairman on 05.10.1998.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.