2005 (9) TMI 619 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds validity of Standing Order 20, emphasizes guidelines and safeguards

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Clause (vi) of Standing Order 20 of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., ruling it constitutional and intra vires ... Whether Clause (vi) of Standing Order 20 of the Certified Standing Orders of the respondent-Corporation valid, constitutional and intra vires Article 14 of the Constitution? Whether the action taken by the General Manager of the respondent Corporation dismissing the appellant petitioner from service as legal and lawful? Issues Involved:1. Validity of Clause (vi) of Standing Order 20 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.2. The applicability of Article 311 of the Constitution to the appellant.3. The impact of acquittal in a criminal case on departmental proceedings.4. The procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice in the dismissal of the appellant.5. The legality and reasonableness of the General Manager's actions under Standing Order 20(vi).Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Clause (vi) of Standing Order 20:The appellant challenged Clause (vi) of Standing Order 20, arguing it was arbitrary, irrational, and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution as it allowed the General Manager to dismiss an employee without following the rule of audi alteram partem. The Supreme Court held that Standing Order 20(vi) is valid, constitutional, and intra vires Article 14. The Court found sufficient guidelines and safeguards within the Standing Orders, such as the requirement for the General Manager to record reasons in writing and the provision for an appeal against the decision. The Court emphasized that judicial review remains available to address any misuse or abuse of power.2. Applicability of Article 311:The appellant conceded that he could not claim protection under Article 311 of the Constitution as he was not a civil servant holding a civil post under the Union or a State. The Court reiterated that employees of corporations do not fall under the ambit of Article 311, referencing the Constitution Bench decision in Dr. S. L. Agarwal vs. General Manager, Hindustan Steel Limited.3. Impact of Acquittal in Criminal Case:The Court clarified that acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude the Corporation from taking departmental action. The two proceedings operate in different fields with different objectives. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is 'beyond reasonable doubt,' whereas in departmental proceedings, it is based on the 'preponderance of probability.' The Court held that the appellant's acquittal did not absolve him from liability under the Corporation's disciplinary jurisdiction.4. Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice:The appellant argued that his dismissal violated principles of natural justice as no notice, explanation, or disciplinary enquiry was conducted. The Court noted that while pre-decisional hearing is preferred, exceptional circumstances may warrant post-decisional hearing. The Court found that the General Manager's decision was based on a detailed assessment of the situation, and the appellant had the right to appeal under Standing Order 21, which provided a reasonable opportunity for defense.5. Legality and Reasonableness of General Manager's Actions:The Court examined the General Manager's order and found it to be a self-contained, reasoned decision. The General Manager had recorded detailed reasons for dismissing the appellant, including the appellant's involvement in an incident that disrupted hospital services and created an atmosphere of terror. The Appellate Authority also upheld the dismissal, noting the appellant's acceptance of his misconduct. The Court concluded that the General Manager's actions were neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, and the dismissal was justified given the gravity of the situation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed both the appeal and the writ petition, upholding the validity of Clause (vi) of Standing Order 20 and the General Manager's decision to dismiss the appellant. The Court emphasized that sufficient safeguards were in place to prevent misuse of power and that judicial review remained available to address any potential abuse.