2007 (8) TMI 766

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been conducted against him and which has found him guilty was perverse and totally illegal.   3. The respondent while working as Deputy General Manager (POL-Marketing) in Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited, Dhaligaon during the year 1998-99 was alleged to have committed serious misconduct for which he was charge-sheeted. The following charges were framed against him which read as under: Article of Charge No.1: Sri G.C.Sarma dishonestly selected and recommended purchase of land at Jorabat on the ground of ecomonic viability. As a Member in the price negotiating committee, he failed to assess the reasonable price of the land inasmuch as he himself intimated the price of 7 acres of land at Rs. 30 lakhs in his preliminary report. Article of Charge No.2: Sri G.C.Sarma appointed the Valuer Sri I. Sharma for land valuation violating the due process of tendering and that the fictitious price fixed by the Valuer at Rs. 25/- per sq.ft. was accepted.   Article of Charge No.3: Sri I.Sharma who floated the firm M/s. ESS Pvt. Ltd., was engaged without process of tendering for determination of soil and rock strata as recommended by Sri G.C.Sarma. The rep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arned Single Judge, he cannot re-agitate later before the Division Bench and in support of his submission, invited our attention to a decision of this Court in Common Cause v. Union of India & Ors. [ (2004) 5 SCC 222]. 6. As against this, Mr.Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that the charges which have been framed against the respondent were not sustainable on the basis of the materials on record and the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly looked into the matter and found that all the charges have been wrongly proved by the inquiring authority. 7. We have bestowed our best of consideration to the rival submissions of learned counsel. The whole issue started on the basis that Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd ( for short, BRPL) launched a programme for setting up of a Jubilee Outlet for marketing its finished products. A Tender Committee (Technical) was constituted to finalise the project. Respondent was one of the members of the Tender Committee (Technical) along with other four members i.e. Shri A.Saran, Shri T.V.John, Shri P.K.Gogoi and Shri H.R.Chopra. Pursuant to the advertisement for purchase/ lease of land, certain tender....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as headed by Shri S.C.Goswami, General Manager ( R & P) and the respondent was one of the members. The Prince Negotiation Committee in its meeting dated 18.12.1998 considered the offer and assessment of the valuer and decided inter alia that a second assessment of price through local source would be necessary because of the high value of the deal and accordingly, deputed the respondent with Shri P.K.Gogoi, Senior Manager (Project) to get the details. Respondent and Shri P.K.Gogoi thereafter visited Jorbat and Nongpuh and collected necessary information regarding the land. The Deputy Commissioner, Ribhoi District informed that as per the past sale record, the price of land at Jorbat was Rs. 20/- per sq.ft. but the sale price in registered documents is shown less than the market value to reduce registration costs. As per the local information it was found that the price varied from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 25/- per sq. ft. depending on topography. Accordingly, a joint note was submitted by respondent and Shri P.K.Gogoi recording their findings. The Prince Negotiation Committee negotiated with the land owners on 4th & 5th January, 1999 wherein Rs. 45 lakhs was offered by the Committee again....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sq. ft. Thereafter, one letter was received from the Deputy Commissioner, Ribhoi District on dated 12.10.2001 that the rate of the land was valued at Rs. 8/- per sq.ft. That letter formed the basis of the regular departmental enquiry in which the respondent was charge-sheeted, on the basis of the above charges. The first charge levelled against the respondent was that the respondent submitted a preliminary report being the member of the Tender Committee in which after meeting the land owner he recommended that the land owner was prepared to sell 7 acres of land at Rs. 30 lakhs and that report was directly submitted to the Director (Commercial). The Director (Commercial) was also a member. Shri S.C.Goswami, General Manager (Marketing) as the Chairman of the Price Negotiating Committee admitted in his statement that he did not dispute the submission of the report where the price of 7 acres of land was mentioned as Rs. 30 lakhs and he was also a member of the Committee. That was the tentative price offered by the land owner. The preliminary report of the respondent was before the Price Negotiation Committee which did not consider the report as relevant. But thereafter ultimat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s a valuer for land valuation was not also the decision of the respondent alone and the exploration of soil and rock strata given to the company, M/s.ESS Pvt. Ltd. was also not the decision of the respondent alone. Therefore, all the three charges which have been framed against the respondent as if he is alone responsible for the deal is not the correct approach. It is also not necessary that the land owner who has given the offer at one point of time at Rs. 30 lakhs to stick to that. Instead she has intimated the appellant company by her letter quoting the price at Rs. 61 lakhs and that was subsequently negotiated and brought out to Rs. 50.01 lakhs. The preliminary report submitted by the respondent to the Director (Commercial) was after discussion with the land owner at the cost of Rs. 30 lakhs yet this cannot work as an estoppel against the land owner. May be the land owner at one point of time might have offered the land at Rs. 30 lakhs but that report cannot operate as estoppel against the land owner that she cannot jag up the price for the land. In fact when the Price Negotiating Committee asked for written proposal from the land owner, she quoted at Rs. 61 lakhs and ul....