‘Arbitrary, high-handed’: Bombay High Court quashes ONGC’s 30-year-old case against 80-year-old retiree

“The inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings in the year 2001 against the petitioner for an alleged violation in the year 1991, goes to the very root of the matter and that by itself vitiates the subsequent orders and actions taken against the petitioner,” the April 4 order read. 

Justices G S Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe criticised the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) for its “arbitrary and high-handed” approach in pursuing proceedings.

Bharadwaj challenged the action, raising the issue whether it was legal and valid for the corporation to initiate a departmental inquiry in 2001 in respect of alleged misconduct of 1991 and impose such a penalty.

He sought directions to the ONGC to grant him all consequential service benefits, including continuity of service, promotions, seniority, back wages, pay fixation and other admissible benefits.

‘Misconduct noted after lapse of 6 years’

• The high court pointed out that the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner was taken note of by the ONGC after a lapse of six years, and action was taken after a further period of four years, showing that the “delay was gross”. 
• The court mentioned that the order passed by the disciplinary authority did not disclose any reasons as to why the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner. 
• The inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner itself demonstrates the arbitrary and high-handed approach on the part of the ONGC.
• The high court found that ONGC failed to make out any case warranting the imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner, and the subsequent penalty affecting his promotion prospects. 
• The court pointed out that the chargesheet shows that the charges against the petitioner are vague and unsubstantiated. 
• The high court further added that it does not set out any role of the petitioner and only alleged that he had an ulterior motive and manipulated the purchases of a large number of items.
• The court quashed the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority dated August 10, 2004 and April 13, 2006, respectively.
• Pointing out that the petitioner is 80 years old, the high court directed that the petitioner should be entitled to all consequential service benefits within a period of six weeks.  

Chargesheet issued after a decade

The petitioner at the relevant time was working at the post of manager in the ONGC. The corporation is engaged in the production of crude oil and natural gas in India and is a public sector undertaking (PSU). 

On August 4, 2001, the petitioner received a chargesheet memorandum of the same date, alleging irregularities in the purchase of certain items in 1991, while the petitioner was working as a superintendent engineer. 

The chargesheet was thus issued after more than a decade from the alleged incident, forming the core challenge in the present case.

The disciplinary authority thereafter imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement by order of August 10, 2004. Subsequently, the appellate authority, by order of April 13, 2006, modified the penalty to a reduction to a lower grade/post with a bar on promotion.

Arbitrary, vitiated

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Ramesh Ramamurthy primarily contended that the entire proceedings culminating in the finding of guilt against the petitioner are arbitrary and vitiated, as they were initiated and conducted in breach of the established procedure of law. 

It was further submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner in response to the inquiry officer’s report was completely ignored by the disciplinary authority while imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. 

It was also submitted that the entire process is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the disciplinary authority.  

It was also submitted that the appellate order was passed without appreciating the facts of the case and did not take into consideration the evidence placed on record. 

Orders as per rules

Representing the ONGC, advocate Oduvil Mohanda argued that the order dated August 10, 2004, as well as the appellate order dated April 13, 2006, are well-reasoned and have been passed strictly in accordance with the ONGC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1994. 

It was also contended that the penalty of reduction to a lower grade/post, with a bar on promotion to the higher grade/post from which the petitioner was reduced, falls squarely within the ambit of relevant rules.