Full Judgment Text
Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023
The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. … Appellant(s)
Versus
Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr. … Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1593/2015
dated 28.2.2019, the present appeal has been filed. Vide
aforesaid order, the judgment and order of the learned Single
Judge of the High Court dated 25.6.2015 in CWJC No. 2176/2004
was reversed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SNEHA DAS
Date: 2023.05.17
17:13:17 IST
Reason:
2. The brief facts as available on record are that on
30.6.2001, tender notice was issued by the Appellant Corporation
Page 1 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023
for the job of ‘Repair of Surface Drain and Tank Pad and Tank No.
235, 236 and 237 inside Refinery’ (Barauni Refinery), in which
three bidders participated. Technical bids were opened on
24.8.2001. However, the price bids were not opened on that day
and were kept with the remarks ‘not opened today’ in the table
drawer of K.C. Patel under lock. The keys thereof were available
with him and respondent no.1, Ajit Kumar Singh. Price bids were
opened on 1.10.2001. Form of quotation submitted by each
bidder was signed by K.C. Patel and G.S. Mahto. Entries were
made in the register. While preparing the comparative table on
3.10.2001 K.C. Patel noticed change in the price bid of M/s. B.S.
Jha as compared to the quoted price in the form of quotation,
which was recorded on 1.10.2001. The signatures of K.C. Patel
were missing in the changed form of quotation of price bid of M/s.
B.S. Jha. There was over-writing in the quoted percentage
wherein digit ‘9’ in the figure of ‘9.6’ was over-written as ‘5’. M/s.
B.S. Jha, who was the second lowest bidder (L-2) when the price
bids were opened on 1.10.2001, was found to be the lowest
bidder (L-1). The matter was not reported to the higher
authorities. Efforts were made to trace the original form of
quotation. When it was not found, the matter was brought to the
notice of the higher authorities.
Page 2 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023
3. 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 thereof so that the firm comes at
L-1. Inquiry was initiated against them. The envelope containing
the price bid of M/s. Laxmi Singh was also sent to the Central
Forensic Institute, Bureau of Police Research & Development,
Kolkata, vide letter dated 8.4.2002. The report established that
the said envelop had been tampered with by opening and then
resealing. Considering the fact that the envelopes containing bid
were kept in a drawer of which a duplicate key was available with
the respondent no.1, chargesheet was issued to him to explain as
to why departmental proceedings be not initiated against him for
changing the form of quotation/ price bid of M/s. Laxmi Singh to
enable him to be L-1 in the tendering process. Simultaneously,
chargesheet was also issued to K.C. Patel for tampering with the
quotation of price bid of M/s. Laxmi Singh. Since the response to
the show cause notice was found to be unsatisfactory,
departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent
no.1 and K.C. Patel. In the Inquiry Report, the Inquiry Officer
opined that there was tampering with the bids. It was found that
tampering was done in the case of tender of bidders M/s. Laxmi
Singh and M/s. B.S. Jha. The changed form of quotation of M/s.
Page 3 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023
Laxmi Singh contained the original signature of respondent no.1.
The charges were proved. The report was forwarded to the
Disciplinary Authority. Copy was sent to the respondent no.1 to
enable him to make representation. The respondent no.1 filed
representation against the Inquiry Report. After considering the
same, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 7.8.2003
imposed major penalty of withholding five annual increments with
cumulative effect, effective from 1.1.2004. To put the record
straight, it is added that K.C. Patel was inflicted punishment of
reduction to a lower grade. The appeal preferred by the
respondent no.1 against the order of punishment was dismissed
on 18.11.2003. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed a writ
petition challenging the order of Disciplinary Authority as well as
the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge. However, in the intra-court appeal, the order of the
Single Judge was reversed and the punishment imposed on the
respondent no.1 was set aside. It is the aforesaid order which is
impugned in the present appeal.
4. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant was that in the matter of judicial review only scope for
interference by the High Court in the disciplinary proceedings is to
see as to whether the due process was followed during the course
Page 4 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023
of inquiry and fair opportunity was given to the employee
concerned. Threadbare evidence could not be examined, that too
in an intra-court appeal, when the order of punishment and the
appellate order were already upheld by the Single Bench of the
High Court. It was a case in which tampering in the price bid was
found to be fully established from the report of Central Forensic
Institute, Bureau of Police Research & Development, Kolkata.
During the period tampering was done, the bid documents were
lying in the joint custody of the respondent no.1 and K.C. Patel.
Most important part was that on the changed form of quotation of
M/s. Laxmi Singh, original signature of respondent no.1 was
found. It was not possible unless he was involved. The order
passed by the Division Bench was to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
no.1 submitted that the injustice done to the respondent no.1 was
corrected by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appellants
should not have any grievance against that. Merely because the
duplicate key of the drawer in which the bid documents were kept
was with the respondent no.1, he cannot be made liable for any
tampering or replacing of the bids. In fact, he has been made a
scapegoat by the other employees. The respondent no.1 is
already suffering in the process for last more than two decades.
Page 5 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023
There is no error in the order passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court. The appeal may be dismissed.
6. The facts of the case leading to the issuance of
chargesheet, initiation of departmental inquiry, the report of the
inquiry officer and the punishment inflicted upon respondent no.1
have already been narrated in the preceding paragraphs. It is not
in dispute that during the course of inquiry, fair opportunity of
hearing was afforded to the respondent no.1 at every stage. This
was even found by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the
writ petition challenging the punishment inflicted upon him. The
judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court shows
that matter was dealt with in a manner as if it was the first stage
of the case, namely, the inquiry was being conducted and inquiry
report was being prepared, which is not the scope in judicial
review. The views expressed by this Court on the scope of
judicial review in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority)
1
vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava , are extracted below:
“24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial
review, of the constitutional courts, is evaluation of
the decision-making process and not the merits of the
decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment
and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The
1 (2021) 2 SCC 612
Page 6 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023
court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held
against the delinquent if it is, in any manner,
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in
violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode
of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached
by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence.
If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable
person would have ever reached or where the
conclusions upon consideration of the evidence
reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or
suffer from patent error on the face of record or
based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could
be issued. To sum up, 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.
25-27 xx xx xx
28. The constitutional court while exercising its
jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or
Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere
with the findings of fact arrived at in the
departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of
mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no
evidence to support a finding or where a finding is
such that no man acting reasonably and with
objectivity could have arrived at those findings and
so long as there is some evidence to support the
Page 7 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023
conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority,
the same has to be sustained .”
(emphasis supplied)
Similar view was expressed in the later judgment of this
Court in Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar vs. Union of
2
India and Ors .
7. 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. The stand taken by the
respondent no.1 was that he was on leave and there was no
question of his tampering with any document. His contention was
that merely because he had the duplicate key of the drawer
where the documents were kept, he cannot be made responsible
for any tampering. However, there was no answer to the finding
recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the Inquiry Report, namely, that
the changed form of quotation of M/s. Laxmi Singh contained
original signature of respondent no.1. The fact that this “Form of
quotation” was changed is not in dispute. When the changed
form of quotation also contained signature of respondent no.1, it
clearly established his involvement in the tampering of document.
2 (2023) SCC Online SC 27
Page 8 of 9
Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023
This fact has not even been noticed by the Division Bench of the
High Court.
8. 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 in Letters Patent Appeal No.
1593/2015 is set aside and the order dated 25.6.2015 passed by
the Single Judge in CWJC No. 2176/2004 is restored.
……………… J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
………………, J.
(Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi
May 17, 2023
//NR-MB//
Page 9 of 9