Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Umesh Eknath Agalawe, was employed as an Engineer Trainee with Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the charge that while working as Engineer Trainee (Purchase) in 2012-13, he demanded illegal gratification from M/s. Pressurejet Systems Ltd., a vendor, for placement of a purchase order against an open tender. A memorandum of charge-sheet dated 30/4/2016 was issued. After an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority found the charge proved and passed an order dated 24/8/2017 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Authority, which dismissed the appeal on 18/12/2017. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of both orders and also prayed for reinstatement, back wages, and continuity of service. The High Court examined the disciplinary proceedings and found that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself, including cross-examination of witnesses. The Court noted that the findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. On the question of proportionality of punishment, the Court held that the penalty of removal for demanding illegal gratification was not disproportionate, considering the nature of misconduct and the position of trust held by the employee. The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Misconduct - Demand of Illegal Gratification - The petitioner, an Engineer Trainee with BHEL, was charged with demanding illegal gratification from a vendor for placement of a purchase order. The Disciplinary Authority found the charge proved and imposed the penalty of removal from service, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The High Court held that the findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse, and the punishment of removal was not disproportionate. (Paras 2-10) B) Service Law - Natural Justice - Fair Opportunity - The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings, including cross-examination of witnesses. The Court found no violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 4-6) C) Service Law - Proportionality of Punishment - The Court held that the punishment of removal for demanding illegal gratification is not disproportionate, considering the nature of misconduct and the position of trust held by the employee. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of removal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is sustainable in law and whether the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Orders of Disciplinary Authority dated 24/8/2017 and Appellate Authority dated 18/12/2017 upheld.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Natural justice
- Proportionality of punishment
- Misconduct by public servant
- Demand of illegal gratification
- Standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings
- Interference under Article 226
