Supreme Court Upholds Disciplinary Action in Tender Tampering Case: Indian Oil Corporation vs. Ajit Kumar Singh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 17 May 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 546

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a High Court re-evaluate evidence in a disciplinary proceeding during judicial review? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving alleged tampering of tender documents. The court clarified the limited scope of judicial review in such matters, emphasizing that the focus should be on the fairness of the process rather than a re-assessment of the evidence. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On June 30, 2001, the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) issued a tender notice for repair work at its Barauni Refinery. Three bidders participated. The technical bids were opened on August 24, 2001, but the price bids were not opened and were kept in a locked drawer. The keys were with K.C. Patel and Ajit Kumar Singh (Respondent No. 1). When price bids were opened on October 1, 2001, a discrepancy was found in the bid of M/s. B.S. Jha. The original form of quotation was missing and the price bid was altered. G.S. Mahto confessed that he replaced the bid at the instance of M/s. B.S. Jha and B.K. Mishra. Further, the envelope containing the bid of M/s. Laxmi Singh was found to be tampered with. A chargesheet was issued to Ajit Kumar Singh (Respondent No. 1) because he had access to the drawer where the bids were kept, and for the fact that the changed form of quotation of M/s. Laxmi Singh contained his original signature.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of withholding five annual increments with cumulative effect on Ajit Kumar Singh (Respondent No. 1). His appeal against this order was dismissed. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. However, in an intra-court appeal, the Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s order and set aside the punishment. This order of the Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to its previous judgments to outline the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. The court emphasized that the role of judicial review is to examine the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court can interfere only if the proceedings are inconsistent with the rules of natural justice, violate statutory rules, or if the findings are based on no evidence, are perverse, or suffer from a patent error on the face of the record.

The Supreme Court cited Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612, wherein it was held that:

“24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.”

The Court also cited Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar vs. Union of India and Ors. (2023) SCC Online SC 27, which reiterated the same principles.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Indian Oil Corporation):

• The High Court, in its judicial review, should only examine whether due process was followed and if a fair opportunity was given to the employee.
• The High Court cannot re-examine the evidence, especially in an intra-court appeal, when the Single Bench had already upheld the punishment.
• The tampering of the price bid was established by the Central Forensic Institute report.
• The bid documents were in the joint custody of Respondent No. 1 and K.C. Patel during the tampering period.
• The changed form of quotation of M/s. Laxmi Singh contained the original signature of Respondent No. 1, which proves his involvement.

Arguments by the Respondent (Ajit Kumar Singh):

• The Division Bench of the High Court corrected the injustice done to him.
• He cannot be held liable for tampering just because he had a duplicate key to the drawer where the documents were kept.
• He was made a scapegoat by other employees.
• He has been suffering for over two decades.
• There is no error in the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but considered the following:

1. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in re-appreciating the evidence in a disciplinary matter.
2. Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer were supported by evidence.
3. Whether the punishment imposed on Respondent No. 1 was justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The court relied on Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612* and Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar vs. Union of India and Ors. (2023) SCC Online SC 27* to emphasize that the scope of judicial review is limited to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision. The Court held that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence as if it was a first stage of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the established principles of judicial review in disciplinary matters and the factual evidence presented in the case. The court emphasized that the High Court’s role is to ensure that the disciplinary process was fair and that the findings were based on some evidence. The key factors that weighed in the mind of the Court were:

• Limited Scope of Judicial Review: The Court reiterated that judicial review is not an appeal on the merits of the case. The High Court should not re-evaluate evidence as if it were a first appellate court.
• Evidence of Tampering: The Forensic Institute’s report and the changed form of quotation containing Respondent No. 1’s original signature were crucial pieces of evidence that established tampering and the involvement of Respondent No. 1.
• Fair Opportunity: The Court noted that the respondent was given a fair opportunity to be heard during the inquiry.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench of the High Court had overstepped its bounds by re-evaluating the evidence as if it were a first appellate court. The court emphasized that the role of judicial review is to ensure that the disciplinary process was fair and that the findings were based on some evidence, not to re-examine the evidence itself. The Court noted that the changed form of quotation of M/s. Laxmi Singh contained the original signature of respondent no.1. The Court also observed that the fact that the “Form of quotation” was changed is not in dispute. The Court held that when the changed form of quotation also contained signature of respondent no.1, it clearly established his involvement in the tampering of document.

The Court stated, “The judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court shows that matter was dealt with in a manner as if it was the first stage of the case, namely, the inquiry was being conducted and inquiry report was being prepared, which is not the scope in judicial review.”

The Court further stated, “However, there was no answer to the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the Inquiry Report, namely, that the changed form of quotation of M/s. Laxmi Singh contained original signature of respondent no.1. The fact that this “Form of quotation” was changed is not in dispute.”

The Court also stated, “When the changed form of quotation also contained signature of respondent no.1, it clearly established his involvement in the tampering of document.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should not re-evaluate evidence in disciplinary proceedings during judicial review.
• The focus of judicial review in disciplinary matters is on the fairness of the process, not the merits of the decision.
• Findings of disciplinary authorities should be upheld if they are based on some evidence and not perverse.
• Employees involved in tampering with tender documents can face disciplinary action.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court and restored the order of the Single Judge, thereby upholding the disciplinary action against the respondent.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the established legal position regarding the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence in disciplinary proceedings during judicial review. The judgment reiterates that the role of the High Court is to ensure that the disciplinary process was fair and that the findings were based on some evidence, not to re-examine the evidence itself. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench’s order and reinstating the Single Judge’s decision. The court emphasized that the Division Bench had exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings. The judgment underscores the limited scope of judicial review in such matters, focusing on procedural fairness rather than a reassessment of evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the disciplinary action against Ajit Kumar Singh (Respondent No. 1), affirming that the findings of the disciplinary authority were supported by evidence.