Gauhati High Court Upholds Censure Under BCPL Conduct Rules | Delay in Review Saved by COVID Limitation Extension and Rule 41 Condonation
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Gauhati Single Bench of Justice Marli Vankung dismissed a writ petition challenging the imposition of a minor penalty under the BCPL Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2013. The Court held that the review authority had validly exercised its powers despite the petitioner’s objection regarding limitation and confirmed that the penalty of “censure” imposed on the employee would stand. The Court directed that the writ petition be disposed of with no order as to costs.
The matter arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Limited (BCPL), a public sector undertaking under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The petitioner was initially recruited pursuant to an advertisement dated 15 November 2013 for the post of Senior Officer, Fire & Safety (E-2), which required one year of post-qualification executive experience, including GET/ET/MT service. The petitioner, having the requisite qualifications, applied and submitted educational and experience certificates, eventually being appointed on 18 June 2014 on probation for one year.
At the time of joining, the petitioner submitted an attestation form on 26 July 2014. In 2017, he sought confirmation of his service. However, in 2018, BCPL initiated disciplinary proceedings, alleging that the petitioner had submitted false information concerning his work experience certificate from M/s Cummins India Ltd. Specifically, while the petitioner claimed experience from 4 July 2011 to 7 May 2013, verification revealed employment from 4 July 2011 to 5 November 2012. This discrepancy led to charges of misconduct under Rules 4(i), 4(iii), and 5(xii), 5(xxiii), 5(xxx) of the BCPL Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2013.
The petitioner submitted a written defence on 5 September 2018, denying the charges. The enquiry officer, after concluding proceedings, submitted a report on 10 December 2019, finding the charges unproved due to missing original certificates. On 13 January 2020, the disciplinary authority concurred with the findings and exonerated the petitioner.
Subsequently, on 14 June 2022, BCPL issued a memorandum informing the petitioner that the review authority would revisit the findings. The petitioner filed his objections on 29 June 2022. Despite his denial, by order dated 1 September 2022, the review authority, invoking Rules 28 and 29, imposed the penalty of “censure.”
The petitioner challenged both orders, arguing that review powers under Rule 39 could not be exercised after six months of the final order. He contended that the review after nearly two-and-a-half years was without jurisdiction, further alleging absence of reasons for condonation under Rule 41. He maintained that he had requisite one-year experience even without the disputed extension of dates and that discrepancies arose from misplacement of his original certificates by BCPL.
The respondents countered that review was valid in light of the Supreme Court’s suo motu order extending limitation periods due to the Covid-19 pandemic. They further argued that the Director (Finance), as competent authority, had condoned the delay under Rule 41. They submitted that false information regarding work experience and forged seals in the attestation forms constituted misconduct, warranting the penalty. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents including Pravin Kumar v. Union of India (2020) and State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy (2023 INSC 766), affirming the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.
The petitioner rebutted that BCPL offices functioned during the pandemic and delay could not be justified. Nonetheless, the Court framed two issues: (i) whether review after two-and-a-half years was barred under Rule 39, and (ii) whether the reviewing authority’s findings rejecting the disciplinary authority’s exoneration lacked evidentiary basis.
The Court observed: “This court finds that from the projections made, the points for consideration that emerges are; whether the reviewing authority had erred in reviewing the ‘final order’ of the disciplinary authority, dated 13.01.2020, after a lapse of 2 years 6 months, while rule 39 of the BCPL Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2013, provided that the review proceedings is to be completed within 6 (six) months.”
On limitation, the Court recorded: “To address the challenges posed by the pandemic in computing the period of limitation, it is seen the Hon’ble Apex court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 had held that the time period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.” It further noted: “Rule 41 of the BCPL Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2013 also provides for condonation of the delay, wherein, the Director (Finance) being the competent authority, as per schedule I-B of the rules, had condoned the delay which is shown in the letter dated 15.12.2021.”
Accordingly, the Court held: “This court finds that the impugned order dated 14.06.2022, issued by respondent No. 4 informing the petitioner that the review authority had decided to review the findings of the disciplinary authority and the subsequent order dated 01.09.2022, imposing the minor penalty of ‘censure’ upon the petitioner cannot be held to be barred by the period of limitation under rule 39 of the BCPL Employees Rules, 2013.”
Regarding judicial review, the Court stated: “It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries.”
The Court cited State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj (2020) 3 SCC 423, Pravin Kumar v. Union of India (2020) 9 SCC 471, and State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy (2023 INSC 766), observing: “Judicial review is not analogous to venturing into the merits of a case like an appellate authority.”
On factual findings, the Court noted: “It is seen that the main charge against the petitioner was the discrepancy found in the attestation form filed by the petitioner, wherein he submitted the work experience certificate with M/s Cummins India Ltd. was from 04.07.2011 to 07.05.2013, however, on verification from M/s Cummins India Ltd, it was found that the petitioner had worked from 04.07.2011 to 05.11.2012… on the basis of the documents filed, the petitioner was held to give false information, which was found to be a violation of rule 4(i), 4(iii) and thereby committed misconduct under rule 5(xii), 5(xxiii) and rule 5(xxx).”
The Court concluded: “The reviewing officer found the petitioner to be inconsistent in his statement and explanations given by him and thus came to the conclusion that the petitioner had submitted false information regarding his work experience with M/s Cummins India Ltd and accordingly imposed the minor penalty of ‘Censure’ upon the petitioner.”
The Court directed: “Accordingly, WP(C) No. 6731/2022 stands dismissed and disposed of. No Cost.”
It recorded that the reviewing authority’s order dated 1 September 2022 imposing the minor penalty of “censure” was sustained under Rules 28 and 29 of the BCPL Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2013. The Court held that there was no procedural illegality, and the findings were supported by recorded evidence. It declined to interfere with the reviewing authority’s conclusions.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. P. J. Saikia, Senior Advocate; Ms. S. Mochahari; Mr. S. Dutta; Mr. Sishir Dutta; Mr. K. J. Saikia; Ms. M. Nirola
For the Respondents: Asstt. S.G.I.; Mr. S. S. Roy, Mr. A. K. Boro, Mr. S. Mitra
Case Title: Sumit Dey v. Union of India and 5 Ors
Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:11412
Case Number: WP(C)/6731/2022
Bench: Justice Marli Vankung
