Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
R.V.S. Bhaskar vs Union Of India And Others on 2 April, 2026
APHC010333682012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 5551/2012
Between:
1.R.V.S. BHASKAR, S/O. SRI R.V.S. SUBBA RAO EXECUTIVE
OPERATIONS OFFICER (UNDER ORDERS OF REMOVAL) VISAKHA
TERMINAL, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
...PETITIONER
AND
1.THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, REP. BY
THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR REGD. OFFICE : 17,
JAMESHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020.
2.THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HINDUSTAN
PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND THE APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, REGD. OFFICE : 17, JAMESHEDJI TATA ROAD,
MUMBAI - 400 020.
3.THE GENERAL MANAGER SZ AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
VISAKHAPATNAM.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased toto issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Certiorari a) Calling for the records relating to the
proceedings, dated 29/12/2009 of the 3rd respondent and proceedings,
24/06/2011 of the 2nd respondent affirming the orders of the Disciplinary
Authority forwarded to the petitioner through Reference No. VITL/RR/OPNS,
dated 21/07/2011 of the Chief Installation Manager and quash or set aside
the same holding it as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution of India. b) Consequently, declare that the petitioner
is entitled to be treated as to have been on duty on and from the date on
which he has been placed under suspension and that he is entitled to receive
all the benefits including monetary and seniority. c) Direct the
Respondents to release all the benefits that would flow from out of quashing
the impugned orders and grant of the declarations prayed for in this writ
petition.
2
IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 7044 OF 2012
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
fix an early date for hearing and disposal of the Writ petition.
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to grant leave to file the Counter affidavit in W.P.No.5551 of 2012 and
pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.SIVA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.A V S LAXMI
Date of reserve : 25.02.2026
Date of pronouncement : 02.04.2026
Date of Upload : 02.04.2026
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION No.5551 of 2012
ORDER:
1. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 29.12.2009 passed
by the 3rd respondent and proceedings dated 24.06.2011 affirming the
orders of the disciplinary authority by the 2nd respondent, which were
communicated to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 21.07.2011. The
petitioner is also seeking a declaration that he be treated as on duty
from the date of his suspension. A further prayer seeking a direction to
the respondents to release all the service benefits due payable to the
petitioner, which would have accrued to the service of the petitioner
after quashing of the impugned proceedings in the writ petition.
2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner, after completing B.E. Mechanical, has applied for the post of
Officer in the 1st respondent-Corporation. The petitioner was appointed
as Officer Trainee on 27.12.1993. It is submitted that the petitioner was
discharging his duty without any blemish or complaint and to the best
satisfaction of his Reporting Officers of the 1st respondent-Corporation.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner was transferred to Visakhapatnam
Terminal and he assumed charge on 12.07.2007. It is submitted that the
petitioner was posted as a Gantry Officer. The Gantry Officer is in
charge of the 16 loading bays, where trucks transporting fuel to the
retail outlets are refueled. It is submitted that all 16 bays will fill the
pumps simultaneously. It is also submitted that 16 trucks would be filled
4
simultaneously with various fuels, and the responsibility for ensuring
each truck is filled to the brim rests with the driver of each of the truck
and the officer supervising all 16 bays. The petitioner was suspended
on 10.09.2007 and served with a charge memo dated 26.11.2007,
containing a sole charge that the tank truck was loaded in excess, as
confirmed by the crew, and that this was done on the advice of the
petitioner. Alleging violation of clause 4(b)(a) and (c) of the Discipline
and Appeal Rules. It is submitted that the respondents have unilaterally
determined that the petitioner has indulged in instructing the filling up of
excess fuel and that the respondents have detected the
misappropriation committed by the petitioner. The respondents did not
consider the objections raised by the petitioner and proceeded to
appoint V.R. Saxena, and J.M. Nayak was appointed as a Presenting
Officer. V.R. Saxena was appointed as an Enquiry Officer.
4. The Enquiry Officer commenced the hearing on 08.07.2008, and the
Presenting Officer submitted 11 documents as exhibits. It is submitted
that the Presenting Officer has based the case completely on the
statement of the truck Driver and the Helper. The learned senior
counsel has raised the following grounds for consideration of the Court
for setting aside the impugned proceedings ;
(i) Ground of No Evidence : The learned senior counsel submits that
there is absolutely no evidence which would clinchingly establish
the role of the petitioner in allegedly instructing the truck Driver
5
and Helper to fill excess fuel into the tank. It is submitted that
when there is no evidence the punishment imposed on the
petitioner would have to be set aside. It is also submitted that the
petitioner was victimized and targeted by his Office Seniors and
others and were waiting in wings for an opportunity to implicate
the petitioner in some case and get it of him. It is submitted that
the reading of the enquiry proceedings and the statements
recorded would categorically imply that there is absolutely no
evidence for falsely implicating the petitioner.
(ii) Quality of Evidence is important rather than quantity : The learned
senior counsel submits that elaborate enquiry was conducted,
several statements were recorded and the enquiry report was
purposefully made bulky without any quality evidence which
points the finger of suspicion to the petitioner.
(iii) Private conversation cannot lead to enquiry : It is submitted that
private conversation between two parties who were not examined
as witness which is the basis for the enquiry and subsequent
passing of the orders which are impugned in the writ petition.
(iv) No question of overloading : The learned senior counsel submits
that the tankers are designed to carry certain capacity of fuel and
those tankers are reloaded on several occasions. There cannot
be any question of excess loading in the tankers which are
designed to carry specified quantity of fuel.
6
(v) Senior Officer MW.3 framed the petitioner : It is submitted that a
Senior Officer whose statement was recorded as witness MW3
had targeted the petitioner and has implicated the petitioner in a
false case though there is no supporting material.
(vi) No other action was initiated against the petitioner : It is submitted
that when the property of the 1st respondent is subjected to
misappropriation or an attempt to misappropriate is made the
respondents would normally filed the criminal case. In the present
case the respondents new that filing of a criminal case against
the petitioner could be counter productive as they were aware
that no offence ever took place which would require investigation
by the police.
(vii) The punishment is too harsh : The learned senior counsel
submits that there is no quantification of the alleged monetary
loss incurred by the respondents. Even assuming without
admitting that one tanker out of 16 tankers had some excess
amount of fuel, the punishment imposed is certainly
disproportionate. It is submitted that the role of the petitioner as a
Gantry Officer is to be in-charge of the 16 loading base where 16
trucks are loaded simultaneously. It would be humanly impossible
for the petitioner to supervise loading of the 16 trucks at the same
time. There were also other staff who were overseeing the
loading of tankers and the petitioner had to essentially depend on
7
the other staff. The minor irregularity if so committed would have
invited the severe punishment of removal from service.
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner places reliance on
B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others1, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court while considering the scope of judicial review under the
Administrative Law held that the High Court has power to alter the
penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the appellate authority. The facts
of the case would have to be gone into for determining the
proportionality of punishment. Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India and
others2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that sufficiency of evidence
postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer
with the misconduct alleged against him. Evidence, however,
voluminous it may be, which is neither relevant in a broad sense nor
establishes any nexus between the alleged misconduct and the charged
officer, is no evidence in law. Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National
Bank and others3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the report of
the Enquiry Officer in order to sustain the scrutiny of law and fact should
be substantiated by evidence. Report prepared on surmises and
conjectures cannot sustain.
5. It is submitted that this is a fit case where this Court can exercise the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and
set aside the punishment imposed on the petitioner.
1
(1995) 6 SCC 749
2
(2002) 7 SCC 142
3
(2009) 2 SCC 570
8
6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that
the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry in a fair and transparent
manner. It is also submitted that the Enquiry Officer accommodated the
petitioner by extending a fair opportunity of representation. It is also
submitted that the enquiry report is certainly based on appropriate and
relevant evidence. It is submitted that the evidence which is relevant to
the subject in issue may be considered as irrelevant by the petitioner. It
is the Enquiry Officer who has conducted the enquiry and recorded the
statements of witnesses who have found relevant evidence for holding
the charges as proved against the petitioner. It is submitted that it is
certainly not the case of no evidence or evidence without quality. It is
submitted that the petitioner could have had locus to comment on the
evidence, subject to the petitioner participating in the enquiry
proceedings during the relevant point in time.
7. It is submitted that though the petitioner was granted ample opportunity
to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were recorded by
the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner chose to abstain from participating in
the enquiry proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner has himself
admitted that the petitioner has not cross-examined MW.2, MW.3 and
MW.4. It is submitted that the request for visiting the site and checking
the tanker was rightly rejected by the respondent authorities as the
same was evidently an attempt to delay the enquiry process. When the
statements and documents were before the Enquiry Officer and
9
available for the petitioner to verify them, cross-examination would have
been conducted on the available material and any requirement of
visiting the site or verifying the tanker would have been demonstrated
by the petitioner during the course of cross-examination. It is submitted
that the petitioner was adamant in delaying the enquiry process, and as
such, the impugned proceedings were issued after considering the
available material and cogent evidence.
8. The learned senior counsel appearing for respondents places reliance
on The State of Karnataka & Anr Vs. N.Gangaraj4, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court while deciding the scope of judicial review held that the
discrepancies in evidence of the department cannot be branded as case
of no evidence. It is also held that the findings of the disciplinary
authority once based on the appreciation by the Enquiry Officer, the
Tribunal or the High Court ought not to interfere. The Indian Oil
Corporation & Ors Vs. Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr5, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held 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. It is also held that the
constitutional Courts would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived
at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of
malafides or perversity. The State of Rajasthan & Ors Vs. Bhupendra
4
Civil Apeal No.8071 of 2014, decided on 14.02.2020
5
2023 LIveLaw (SC) 478
10
Singh6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not
to interfere in the fact finding exercise and had restored the removal
order passed by the disciplinary authority.
9. Heard both the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties.
Perused the material on record.
10. The short point for consideration is whether this Court can interfere with
the impugned proceedings and grant the relief as prayed for or any
other relief for which the petitioner is entitled to.
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was issued a charge memo dated
26.11.2007, alleging the petitioner’s involvement in excessive loading of
a tanker bearing No.AP31U2529. The petitioner was suspended on
10.09.2007. On the basis of the said charge, an enquiry was initiated
after appointing the Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. The
Enquiry Officer has recorded the statements of the witnesses on behalf
of the management and also took into consideration the documents as
submitted.
12. The petitioner was also granted ample and fair opportunity for
participating in the proceedings, it was open for the petitioner and the
defence assistant to cross examine the witnesses who were examined
on behalf of the respondents, however, the petitioner had refused to
cross examine by denying to participate in the enquiry proceedings
when examination of MW.2, MW.3 and MW.4 was taken up by the
6
Civil Appeal Nos.8546-8549 of 2024, decided on 08.08.2024
11
Enquiry Officer. The reason assigned by the petitioner for not
participating in the enquiry proceedings is that the defence assistant
requested the respondents to permit the petitioner and the defence
assistant to visit the site and see the tanker. Such a request could have
been made by the petitioner and his defence Assistant after completely
participating in the enquiry proceedings and demonstrating the
necessity of visiting the site and checking the tanker. In the present
case, the petitioner evaded cross-examination of the MW.2 to MW.4.
13. The scope of this Court to go into the aspect of the quality of evidence
is concerned, it is a settled preposition of the Administrative law that the
constitutional Courts cannot re-appreciate the evidence and assume the
role of the appellate authority over the disciplinary authority. The
constitutional Courts can certainly set aside the punishments awarded
by the disciplinary authorities, subject to satisfaction that the
punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges
framed. Such interference would be necessary in cases where there is
no evidence at all.
14. On the facts of the present case, the disciplinary authority has
considered the available material on record and held the petitioner guilty
of misconduct, finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner
were proved. It is also undisputed that the petitioner chose to evade
cross-examining the other material witnesses, and in such
12
circumstances, the petitioner can claim no evidence or no quality
evidence.
15. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioner has not made out any valid grounds for interfering with the
impugned proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby
dismissed.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
02.04.2026
KGM
13
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION No.5551 OF 2012
Dated 02.04.2026
KGM
