J RAVI KUMAR HINDUSTAN PETROLIUM CORPORATION LTD Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HINDUSTAN PETROLIUM CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the counsel.

(2.) This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus by calling the records relating to and connected with proceedings dated 29.7.1998 issued by the lst respondent wherein the petitioner was imposed the penalty of reduction to a lower grade (RW3) without reduction in salary for a period of three years with effect from 29.7.1998 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings dated 4.5.1999 and declare them as illegal, arbitrary and without any evidence and consequently set them aside and to pass orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(3.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner was working as Operations Technician in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam (for short 'the Corporation') and the 1st respondent - Chief General Manager, placed him under suspension by order dated 10.1.1998 stating that it was reported that the petitioner has stolen the Corporation's property from its Additional Tankage Project Area and Maintenance Department and that this amounts to misconduct as per Standing Orders of the Corporation. Both the suspension order and charge sheet are issued in the same proceedings dated 10.1.1998 and pursuant to the same, the petitioner gave a detailed reply dated 9.2.1998 denying the charge of theft. Not being satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was conducted and after completion of the same, summation report was submitted by the enquiry officer and the petitioner has filed explanation to the same. Eventually the 1st respondent - Chief General Manager by order dated 29.7.1998 imposed the punishment on the petitioner by reduction to a lower grade without reduction in salary for a period of three years with effect form 29.7.1998. In the appeal, the Director - Refineries - 2nd respondent confirmed the order of the 1st respondent through proceedings dated 4.5.1999 and the subsequent review petition by the petitioner also ended in dismissal on the ground of delay and latches by order dated 2.9.1999. It is stated the charge against the petitioner was that he has stolen the property of the Corporation, which is based on the remand report given by the Sub-Inspector of Police Malkapuram Crime P.S., Visakhapatnam city dated 8.1.1998, wherein the case of the Sub-Inspector is that certain properties were seized from the possession of the petitioner during the late hours of 7.1.1998 and that the petitioner admitted before the police regarding the theft of property of the Corporation. In the said remand report it is stated that "during the course of investigation efforts have been made to establish the ownership of the seized property in HPCL but not established." Based on the said remand report a case in Crime No.3/1998 was registered and the same was numbered as C.C.No. 187/1998 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam for the offence of theft under Section 379 I.P.C. Before completion of criminal case, domestic enquiry has been completed, wherein the petitioner was held to be guilty of misconduct of theft. The criminal case ended in clean acquittal by judgment dated 19/3/1999. It is stated that the entire enquiry proceedings have started on the premise that the petitioner has stolen the property and that punishment was imposed by the 1st respondent only on the ground that the petitioner had confessed before the Sub-Inspector with regard to committing of theft and the subsequent identification of the property of the Corporation. The criminal court has disbelieved the version of the Sub Inspector of Police, who was examined as P.W.6. The respondent though conducted enquiry on the ground that the petitioner had stolen the property, did not lodge any complaint and as per the remand report the efforts made for establishment of the ownership of the property ended in futile. The tenor of the affidavit is that there is no evidence before the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment of demotion of the petitioner and that, even though the evidence before the enquiry officer and the criminal court is similar, the appellate authority did not give any credence to the judgment of the criminal court acquitting the petitioner, while confirming the order passed by the initial authority. With these averments inter alia, the petitioner sought for setting aside the impugned orders.