Patna High Court
Satish Prasad Datta vs The Union Of India & Ors on 11 July, 2018
Author: Madhuresh Prasad
Bench: Madhuresh Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 4701 of 2013
===========================================================
Satish Prasad Datta S/O Late Kamlakant Lal Datta Resident Of Mohalla
Dharamganj, P.O. Kishanganj, P.S. Kishanganj, District Kishanganj.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry Of Textile, Government o f
India, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Textile, Union of India, New Delhi.
3. The Board of Director through the Chairman cum Managing Director the Jute
Corporation of India Ltd., Regd. And Head Office 15N, Nellie Sengupta Sarani,
Kolkata-700087.
4. The Chairman cum Managing Director, the Jute Corporation of India Ltd., Reg.
And Head Office-15N, Nellie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
5. The Manager, Personnel and Administration, the Jute Corporation of India Ltd.,
Regd. And Head Office-15N, Nellie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
6. The Deputy Manager, Personnel and Administration, the Jute Corporation o f
India Ltd., Regd. And Head Office-15N, Nellie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
7. The Regional Manager, The Jute Corporation Of India Ltd., Regional Office,
N.H. 31, Purnea, P.S. Purnea, District Purnea.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Bhavendra Jha,
Ms Anju Jha, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : NONE
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 11-07-2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears
on behalf of the respondent-Corporation.
2 The petitioner, while posted as Senior Inspector,
Incharge of the Departmental Purchase Centre (for brevity, DPC),
Panjipara of the respondent-Corporation was proceeded against for
two charges. The charges were in relation to purchase of 16,074.86
Patna High Court CWJC No.4701 of 2013 dt.11-07-2018
2/7
quintals of Jute from the growers indiscriminately without judging the
quality, moisture-contents of the fibres etc. The second charge was
also of the same nature. The sum and substance of the charges is that
due to his indiscriminate purchase of Jute from the growers, he has
caused heavy loss to the respondent-Corporation. In respect of the
said charges, the Disciplinary Authority has recorded the findings
which are being raised herein:
"After considering all facts, I observe
that Panjipara DPC purchased a huge quantity of
16,074.86 quintals of raw jute under MSP
Operation. Sri Dutta had taken personal interest
for purchase of such huge quantity of raw jute
from the growers which I feel a positive aspect on
the part of an employee of JCI and for this reason
the incumbent should get some relief. Further, on
selling the jute procured by Panjipara DPC, the
Corporation has not incurred any Financial Loss.
Hence, the Financial Loss as shown in the Bin In
& Out Statement should not be considered as loss.
But the financial performance of the DPC would
have been much better had Sri Dutta been little
cautious about his responsibilities, judicious at the
time of purchase and listen to his superior's
advises."
3 On basis of such findings, the authority has proceeded
to award major penalty of recovery of Rs 19,979/- that is 10% of the
pecuniary loss of Rs 1,99,789.14 and which was to be recovered at the
rate of Rs 2,000/- per month till his superannuation. The balance
amount was to be recovered from the terminal dues. He was also
awarded reduction of pay by one stage from Rs 15,810/- to Rs
Patna High Court CWJC No.4701 of 2013 dt.11-07-2018
3/7
15,340/- in his time scale of pay of Rs 5,200/- - 20,200/- for a period
of one year with effect from 01.04.2010.
4 Being aggrieved by the said punishment, the
petitioner has also approached this Court by filing CWJC No 13110 of
2012. The same was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
approach the appellate Authority, namely, Board of Directors of the
Jute Corporation of India. The petitioner, thereafter, has filed his
appeal and the same has been rejected. Board's decision has been
communicated under letter dated 25.10.2012 issued under the
signature of Company Secretary -cum- General Manager. The
finding/conclusion of the Appellate Authority is not necessary to be
considered since the same is a mere repetition of the conclusion
arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority.
5 In respect of the two charges alleging that the
petitioner had caused heavy loss to the respondent-Corporation by
virtue of his indiscriminate purchase, the specific finding of the
Disciplinary Authority was that the purchase made by the petitioner
was a positive aspect on his part and that for this, he was entitled to
some relief. It has also been concluded by the Disciplinary Authority
that "on selling the Jute procured by Panjipara DPC, the Corporation
has not incurred any financial loss. Hence, the financial loss as shown
in the Bin In and Out Statement should not be considered as loss".
Patna High Court CWJC No.4701 of 2013 dt.11-07-2018
4/7
6 In view of this specific finding of the Disciplinary
Authority, the award of punishment for the said charges is clearly
unsustainable on facts as well as on law. Since the specific charge
was of indiscriminate purchase and the specific finding is that the
same was a positive aspect and no loss has been occasioned, this
Court is of the opinion that petitioner cannot be met with any penal
consequences in the circumstance. The award of punishment is
clearly perverse and unsustainable. Since the finding of the
Disciplinary Authority before proceeding to award the punishment is
that the charges were substantially not established in the proceedings.
The only reason which appears to have been made the basis for
inflicting the punishment against the petitioner, which has also been
recorded in the order of the Disciplinary Authority, is as follows:
"But the financial performance of the
DPC would have been much better had Shri Datta
been little cautious about his responsibilities,
judicious at the time of purchase and listen to his
superior's advises."
7 This did not constitute a charge either in Charge No I
or Charge No II of the Charge Memo which was being enquired into
in the proceeding. The findings are without any enquiry. Further, the
finding is presumptuous inasmuch as it is in respect of possible better
performance. The same, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to
be misconduct, more so in view of the fact that there was no
Patna High Court CWJC No.4701 of 2013 dt.11-07-2018
5/7
allegation in this respect and the issue has not been enquired into.
Clearly, the award of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority,
which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority, is shocking to
the conscience of this Court, outrageous and defies logic.
8 This Court is conscious of the limitation in interfering
with the quantum of punishment but this appears to be an appropriate
case wherein perversity of the punishment is glaring.
9 In this connection, this Court would consider the law
in this regard laid down by the Apex Court, as noticed in the case of D
V Kapoor -Versus- Union of India and Others, (1990) 4 Supreme
Court Cases 314:
"10 ... ... ...The measure of
deprivation, therefore, must be correlative to or
commensurate with the gravity of the grave
misconduct or irregularity as it offends the right to
assistance at the evening of his life as assured
under Article 41 of the Constitution. ... ... ..."
10 In the case of Ranjit Thakur -Versus- Union of India
and Others, (1987) 4 Supreme Court Cases 611, the Apex Court has
held that such outrageous defiance of logic in the matter of award of
punishment would not be immune to correction. The relevant extract
of the judgment is being reproduced for the sake of reference:
"25 Judicial review generally
speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is
directed against the "decision-making process".
The question of the choice and quantum of
punishment is within the jurisdiction and
Patna High Court CWJC No.4701 of 2013 dt.11-07-2018
6/7
discretion of the court-martial. But the sentence
has to suit the offence and the offender. It should
not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be
so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the
conscience and amount in itself to conclusive
evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality,
as part of the concept of judicial review, would
ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise,
within the exclusive province of the court-martial,
if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is
an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence
would not be immune from correction.
Irrationality and perversity are recognized
grounds of judicial review. ... ... ..."
11 In the circumstances, this Court would consider it
appropriate that in view of the fact that the charges have not been
established against the petitioner in the proceedings, as is apparent
from the findings of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the
Appellate Authority, the respondent-authorities should consider the
desirability of awarding punishment to the petitioner and take a
decision in this respect having regard to the observations of this Court
in the instant judgment.
12 The petitioner should be allowed the benefit of the
findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority
which has been quoted hereinabove. The final decision, after
reconsidering the desirability of awarding punishment regarding the
quantum of punishment should be taken by the Appellate Authority
by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from
Patna High Court CWJC No.4701 of 2013 dt.11-07-2018
7/7
the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the petitioner
should be allowed his consequential benefits arising out of such
reconsideration.
13 The orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority
dated 19.04.2010 communicated under Communication dated
20.04.2010by the Deputy Manager (Personnel and Administration) as also the communication dated 25.10.2012 issued under the signature of Company Secretary - cum- General Manager whereby appeal filed by the petitioner before the Board of Directors of the Corporation has been dismissed are quashed to the extent of punishment imposed in the said orders.
14 In case no final decision is taken within the said period, petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits arising out of quashing of the punishment.
15 Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 16.07.2018 Transmission NA Date