Pankaj Kumar Raj v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd

1. In this petition, the chajift^spfiin^ ofmajor penalty of reduction of petitioner's for aperiod of five yearswithoutany increment"^||^i^^|feteorderof15 June, 2015 vide which petitioner's appeal against Disciplinary Authority's order of 3'^ December, 2014 has b^n4ipii^d.

2. The facts emerging from bV^'cipiinary Authority's order of 3 December, 2014 are that in pursuance ofMemorandum of 10^^ February, 2012 pertaining to submission offalse information by petitioner with application of20'^ December, 2008 andfalse experience certificate of M/s. Amar Electricals alongwith his personal resume of12'^ May, 2009 to secure appointment to thepost ofEngineer (Electrical) in Power Grid Corporation India Limited, departmental proceedings were initiated W.P.(C) No.8608/2015 ^ 2017:DHC:8580 against petitioner which culminated in passing of impugned order of 3'^'^ December, 2014. The imputation ofmisconduct against petitioner was on tv/o counts. First one was regarding petitioner not having requisite experience of three years in Design and Engineering of 132 KV and the second part of the imputation was of producing Experience Certificate from M/s. Amar Electricals, which was non-existent. It is evident from ' impugned order of 3"^ December, 2014 that the Inquiry Officer on the basis of evidence led had cohcluded^ that; the,charge of M/s. Amar Electricals being non-existent was not proved and regarding Experience Certificate, it was•found. _,.did' possess a= Experience Certificate oftwo years froni but the:Experience Certificate from M/s. Star Btectticals'ii^^efced by Presenting-"Officer, which was also of about one aAid^^sdlJ^e^l-Was notproved asnowitness •• }''• i l^i ""''V from M/s. Star Electricals haH ^oik^lforward to prove the Certificate indicating petitioner's experience;^ptie-']^i^c<'ipjnary Authority in the order of[3] December, 2014 had concluiiedJks und#iJf.^ "The claim regard to his experience, although Inquiring Officer has stated that these claims are.not fortified by tangible evidence and '^) are notauthenticaiM,f'6qw^pe^^^i&ively negated."

3. Upon taking a lenient view, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed a penalty as noted hereinabove. Petitioner's appeal has been dismissed vide impugned order of 15*^ June, 2015 while noting as under:- "1. That the Inquiry has been conducted as per procedure laid down and all the reasonable opportunity was given toShri Pankaj Kumar Rai. W.P.(C) No.8608/2015 Page[2] [1

2. All the relevant facts of the case have been considered by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing thepenalty vide order dt. 3''^December, 2014.

3. The principles of natural justice have been followed in conducting the disciplinary proceedings against Shri Pankaj Kumar Rai.

4. A lenient view has already been taken by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the major penalty on Shri Pankaj Kumar Rai as mentioned in.the order dt. 3*"^December, 2014:

5. Thegrounds dfa00rta^^by theAppellantare not basedon any ne\/y'^ct^^^' ^ ' ' challenge to Discipiiha^ClCilt^^ order of December, 2014 and appellate order of learned senior counsel for petitioner is on the ground tMi tlier^H!isi|no application of mind by f-t} W^.VA. II appellate authority as an appgal.^E^d rM^^^ased on new facts and the penalty imposed by Disciplini^^^o4^|hg^ds to be quashed for the reason that it is totally uncalled,s Experience Certificate from M/s. Star Electricals was duly received by Presenting Officer during the course of Inquiry and-'vso, -there was no^r;eaSon to disbelieve it and insistence upon strict rules of evideribe is hot called for in departmental proceedings as the. misconduct has to be judged in these proceedings on the touchstone ofpreponderance ofprobability.

5. It was urged by learned senior counsel for petitioner that the proprietor of M/s. Amar Electricals in his evidence has categorically deposed that petitioner had worked with M/s.Star Electricals frorn September, 2006 to March, 2008 and the said evidence of this witness W.P.{C) No.8608/2015 ^ Page 3

4. The \8 remains unchallenged and so, on this count also, impugnedpenalty ought to be quashed.

6. The stand taken by learned counsel for respondents is that during the Inquiry, it has been conclusively established that Experience Certificate and Salary Certificate issued by M/s. Amar Electricals were false and it could not be rebutted by petitioner during the Inquiry. The precise stand ofrespondents is that Disciplinary Authority in its order of 3'''^ December, 2014 has taken;a lenient view and the said order has been confirmed by Appellate Authority afid,that it is within the domain ofthe Disciplinary Authority/Appellat&:Auj^^ about the nature of punishment to be awarded-in;;.yiew: of/m^^ committed by an employee. Reliance is place^^^nvSw^n^^ decisionjniApparel Export Promotion Council v. (1) SCO 759 to submit •J' J j'i that High Court should not siibsiitilitelits own discretion for that of an Authority and what punishme]git4^i0^b§jf^|^ed in'the facts ofthe case, is a matter which" exclu%eMw'§ the jurisdiction of the competent authority and does"i^9|^|^^^y interference- by the court. Dismissalofthe writ petition with costs is sought by respondents.

7. Upon hearing and dnxlenjs&g^h^-iiwpu^^d orders, the record and the decisions cited, I find that in light of Supreme Court's decision in Apparel Export Promotion Council (supra), this Court cannot substitute its opinion in place of the opinion of the authorities concerned but it is certainly within the jurisdiction ofthis Court to interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, if the findings returned are found to be perverse. Non application of mind by the Inquiry Officer is one of the grounds on which this Court is justified in interfering with the orders passed by the W.P.(C) No.8608/2015 "" ^ Page 4 !? ap Disciplinary Authorities. It has been so reiterated by Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank & Ors. Vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari (2017) 2 SCC 308. In the instant case, the Inquiry Officer has jumped to the conclusionthat the experience certificate issued by M/s. Star Electricals in favour of the petitioner is not supported bytangible evidence.

8. •It is relevant to take note of the fact that there is no mention of petitioner's experience with M/s. Quadri &M/s. Star Electricals initially and petitioner had relied upon experience ceitificate issued by M/s. Amar Electricals. But petitioner has relied upon evidence qfproprietor ofM/s. Amar Electricals wherein the'faGMmi bt^^^ requisite experience with M/s. Quadri and M/s. 'Siar®i^6n^ and cepimissioning of 132 KV equipments rera^Mi^^••^Qii^jWnjged and so, itr is per se admissible. This vital aspecti"lias>^eeh%^^ by the Disciplinary AiitVir»ritif»c wViirVi rpnrlp.rpfl im^ugnefd qr|d|eis natentlv illeeal.

9. The settled strict rules ofevidence do n&|)]|i|.--^•^J<|^%ary matters, Principles of Natural Justice have to be Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 570 has unequivocally declared th^rifJbiquiry Qffiefr^^eport is based on mere ipse dixit and on surmises and conjectures, then it cannot be sustained. In the instant case, Inquiry Officer has found that the experience certificate issued by M/s. StarElectricals to petitioner wasverified by the Presenting Officer but still it has not been relied upon on the untenable plea of it not beingformally provedby a witness from M/s. StarElectricals. To saythe least, such a reasoning is utterly perverse as once a document has been got verified, then where is the need offormal proof W.P.(C) No.8608/2015 Page 5

10. The well established proposition of law is that validity of administrative decisions is required to be decided on the basis of reasoning contained in the orders passed and not onthe basis of material which is not on record. In this regard, Supreme Court's decision in Mohinder Singh Gill & Am. Vs. The ChiefElection Commissioner New Delhi & Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405 can be referred to, with advantage. So, O no notice can be taken ofthe documents which were shown during the course of hearing by respondent's.counsel. It,is, being so said because there is no whisper of these documents in the evidence led or in the impugned orders..; ' U''

11. The Disciplinary Authonl^'iasTpiir^^^ on.the basis of v) o report ofthe Inquiry Officer guilty because oflack of formal proof of the exfeeilbni^tlic^ljlcate issued by M/s. Star j?. pI'f Electricals. In light of the fbre^ih^lnaiTM®^' petitioner's indictment and punishment cannot be sustaiife(fe:^;l^result, impugned orders of3"^ np.r.Rmhp.r 9014 and of15^'^;^urieii6"i5ate^hereby quashed with direction all consequential benefits including arrears etc.