# Ram Krishna @ Ram Krishna Yadav v. I.O.C. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 1022
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-16
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 61055 of 2016
- **Bench:** Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-krishna-ram-krishna-yadav-v-i-o-c-ors-50665
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

Service Law - Discipline and Appeal Rules,
1980 - Rules 26, 31 & 38 - Disciplinary
Proceedings - Confessional Statement - CCTV
Footage - Natural Justice - Conduct --
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 65A, 65B -
Validity of Dismissal Order - Requirement of
Reasoned
Orders
by
Disciplinary
and
Appellate Authorities
8 All. Ram Krishna @ Ram Krishna Yadav Vs. I.O.C. & Ors.
1023
Facts: The petitioner, an Operations Officer at
Indian Oil Corporation's Bitumen Drum Filling
Plant (BDFP), Mathura, was dismissed from
service following allegations of misconduct
involving the theft of 184 bitumen drums. The
charges were based on an alleged oral
confession made on 17.02.2015 before police in
the presence of three prosecution witnesses and
manipulation of CCTV footage. The petitioner
denied the charges, alleging torture and coerced
confession. The inquiry officer found the
charges partially proved, and the Disciplinary
Authority, after issuing a disagreement note,
dismissed the petitioner on 01.08.2016. The
Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on
02.12.2016. The petitioner challenged both
orders,
contending
that
the
inquiry
was
defective, the confession was not proved, and
the orders lacked reasoning.

Held:
The
court
held
that
the
inquiry
proceedings were defective due to: (i) the
absence of the alleged confessional St.ment as
an exhibit and failure to produce police officials
as witnesses to corroborate the confession; (ii)
the
prosecution
witnesses'
admission
of
threatening language used during interrogation
and the petitioner's distressed St., suggesting
coercion; (iii) failure to produce the Security
Supervisor to whom the keys were allegedly
handed; and (iv) lack of certification of CCTV
footage as required under Sections 65A and 65B
of the Evidence Act, 1872. The petitioner was
placed under suspension, with directions for
payment
of
subsistence
allowance,
and
consequential benefits were made subject to the
inquiry's outcome.

Writ Petition Partly Allowed.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,897 of 80,842. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39897 for what follows._

1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
process, provisionally. As has been noted
above, at the relevant time, the position in
law was unclear. It became clear upon the
subsequent pronouncements made by this
Court and the Supreme Court. Insofar as no
right accrued to Shri Krishna Kumar,
contrary to any law declared by any Court
and insofar as he remains an unsuccessful
candidate, we find no good ground to
interfere on the plea set up by the
petitioners.

85. Much emphasis was also laid to
the fact that respondent No. 5 did not
withdraw the writ petition and chose to file
an I.A. before the Supreme Court in the
writ proceedings instituted by respondent
No. 4. While that may have been the
conduct offered by respondent No.5 before
the Supreme Court, it is not for this Court,
to examine that issue any further. Here,
petitioners claim to have been wrongly
declared unsuccessful at the Interview test.
If at all, that issue should have been raised
before the Supreme Court. What prevailed
with the Supreme Court that had led to the
order being passed by it, is not for this
Court to consider, in these proceedings.
That litigation having reached a fair end
and the order passed therein having
attained finality, the issue being raised by
the petitioners is found to be non-existent,
at present.

86. Insofar as the other respondents
are concerned, it is undisputed case of the
petitioners that their names were excluded
in the result declared by the Selection
Committee. That exclusion was enforced
upon decision of the Supreme Court in
Dheeraj Mor (supra).

87. No further issue survives for
consideration, in the present proceedings.

88. In view of the discussions made
above, no illegality either fundamental or
real is seen to have been committed in the
entire selection process as may warrant any
interference by this Court. The principle
being invoked by the petitioners on the
strength of the decision of the Supreme
Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and
Ors. Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Ors.
(1990) 1 SCC 305, is therefore wholly
inapplicable.

89. The writ petition lacks merit and
is
accordingly
dismissed.
Since
the
petitioners are practicing lawyers, no order
as to costs.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 1022
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ-A No. 61055 of 2016

Ram Krishna @ Ram Krishna Yadav
 ...Petitioner
Versus
I.O.C. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rahul Sripat, Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Ashok
Khare (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Prakash Padia, Sri Anand Tiwari

Service Law - Discipline and Appeal Rules,
1980 - Rules 26, 31 & 38 - Disciplinary
Proceedings - Confessional Statement - CCTV
Footage - Natural Justice - Conduct --
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 65A, 65B -
Validity of Dismissal Order - Requirement of
Reasoned
Orders
by
Disciplinary
and
Appellate Authorities
8 All. Ram Krishna @ Ram Krishna Yadav Vs. I.O.C. & Ors.
1023
Facts: The petitioner, an Operations Officer at
Indian Oil Corporation's Bitumen Drum Filling
Plant (BDFP), Mathura, was dismissed from
service following allegations of misconduct
involving the theft of 184 bitumen drums. The
charges were based on an alleged oral
confession made on 17.02.2015 before police in
the presence of three prosecution witnesses and
manipulation of CCTV footage. The petitioner
denied the charges, alleging torture and coerced
confession. The inquiry officer found the
charges partially proved, and the Disciplinary
Authority, after issuing a disagreement note,
dismissed the petitioner on 01.08.2016. The
Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on
02.12.2016. The petitioner challenged both
orders,
contending
that
the
inquiry
was
defective, the confession was not proved, and
the orders lacked reasoning.

Held:
The
court
held
that
the
inquiry
proceedings were defective due to: (i) the
absence of the alleged confessional St.ment as
an exhibit and failure to produce police officials
as witnesses to corroborate the confession; (ii)
the
prosecution
witnesses'
admission
of
threatening language used during interrogation
and the petitioner's distressed St., suggesting
coercion; (iii) failure to produce the Security
Supervisor to whom the keys were allegedly
handed; and (iv) lack of certification of CCTV
footage as required under Sections 65A and 65B
of the Evidence Act, 1872. The petitioner was
placed under suspension, with directions for
payment
of
subsistence
allowance,
and
consequential benefits were made subject to the
inquiry's outcome.

Writ Petition Partly Allowed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Roop Singh Negi Vs PNB (2009) 2 SCC 570

2. Yaswant Redkar Vs Hindustan Petroleum Ltd.
(1998) 3 Bom CR 743

3. R.P. Bhatt Vs U.O.I.(1986) 2 SCC 651

4. Ram Chander Vs U.O.I.(1986) 3 SCC 103

5. Divisional Forest Officer Vs Madhusudhan Rao
(2008) 3 SCC 469
6. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao
Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1

7. Ravindra Singh Vs St. of Pun. (2022) 7 SCC
581

8. K.L. Sinha Vs St. of Mysore (1976) 3 SCC 766

9. St. of Haryana Vs Ratan Singh (1977) 2 SCC
491

10. J.D. Jain Vs Management of S.B.I.(1992) 1
SCC 143

11. Workmen of Balmadi ESt.s Vs Management
(2008) 4 SCC 517

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth
Khare learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Anand Tiwari learned counsel for
the respondents.

2. Briefly stated facts shorn of
unnecessary details as worded in the writ
petition are that pursuant to the selections
conducted by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Indian Oil Bhawan G-9 Ali Yavar Jung Marg,
Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharatna (in short
respondent Corporation) under the financial
aegis of the Union of India, Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas, the petitioner
was selected as a Steno/Typist and was
accorded appointment on 15.03.1999. It is
further the case of the writ petitioner that the
writ petitioner was promoted on 30.07.2012
as Sales Officer and was posted at Azamgarh
and subsequently on 05.05.2014 he was
transferred from Azamgarh to Mathura
Terminal "A" as Operation Officer and he
assumed the charge on the said date in
Bitumen Plant in Mathura.

3. According to the writ petitioner
while he was posted as Operation Officer
1024 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
BDFP, Mathura Emp. No. 30090 on "B"
shift duty in the plant on 13.02.2015 from
2:00 P.M. To 10:00 P.M., he after
completing his duty hours on the said date
at 10:00 P.M. along with the Security
Supervisor sealed the locks of the gates as
per the rules, however, it is alleged that a
theft took place of 184 drums containing
Bitumen and the matter was reported in the
morning on 14.02.2015.

4. It is further the case of the writ
petitioner that on 17.02.2015 the writ
petitioner along with Amrit Lal Gupta,
Operation Officer, Dipanjan Barai, Plant
Incharge and Girija Shankar, Deputy
General Manager were called at Police
Station, Mathura Refinery , Mathura and
the writ petitioner was put to third degree
torture and signatures of the writ petitioner
were taken on a blank sheet against his
wishes and he was arrested formally on
18.02.2015 in Case Crime No. 110 of 2015
under Section 380, 381, 411, 120B I.P.C.
P.S. Refinery Mathura and thereafter the
writ petitioner was languished in jail.
Ultimately the Courts came in his rescue
and he was released from judicial custody
on 04.08.2015. The criminal trial is going
on before the Judicial Magistrate, Mathura
in Case Crime No. 667 of 2015.

5. Alleging, indulging in an act which
led to theft of corporation's property from
the premises entailing financial loss and
tarnishing the image of the corporation, in
exercise of the provisions under Rule 26,
sub-rule 1(a) of the Conduct, Discipline
and Appeal Rules, 1980 of the Indian Oil
Corporation the writ petitioner was placed
under suspension on 18.02.2015 by the
third
respondent,
General
Manager,
Incharge,
U.P.S.O.
II,
Indian
Oil
Corporation Ltd, Indian Oil Bhawan, E-8,
Sector 1, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar.
As per the records on 07.08.2015 the ED
U.P. SO-II Competent and Disciplinary
Authority
thereafter
reviewed
the
suspension while continuing the suspension
which has already been made with effect
from 18.02.2015. A charge sheet was issued
to the writ petitioner on 31.08.2015
containing as many as two charges relatable
to the allegation that while he was posted
as Operation Officer from May, 2014 till
February, 2015 at BDFP, Mathura on "B"
shift duty at the plant on 13.02.2015 as per
the standard procedure upon closure of "B"
shift, required to close the gates with key
under his custody and also seal the gate
with unique number plastic seals and paper
seal under signature is required to be posted
on the key-whole over the locks containing
signature of "B" shift officer as well as
security supervisor on duty and keys of the
locks was supposed to be retained with the
outgoing officer and in the morning "A"
shift officer is required to check lock paper
seal lock and unique number, plastic seal
on the gate with record of provision of the
same by night shift officer and open the
lock with the key available with him but
the writ petitioner violated the said
standard procedure and handed over the
main gate key to Sri Bhagwan Singh
Security Supervisor after conclusion of "B"
shift duty on 13.02.2015 and he collected
the keys from Bhagwan Singh afterwards.
As
regard
the
second
statement
of
imputation in the shape of the charge No. 2
it is alleged that CCTV footage of Cam 05
located
near
CRMB
zone
shows
unwarranted entry and exit of two trucks on
14.02.2015 morning hours between 00:18
hours and 2:18:19 hours establishing
unwarranted movement of trucks within the
plant premises on the early morning hours
of 14.02.2015 and it was also observed that
other CCTV cameras were also disturbed
with their direction facing upward to ensure
8 All. Ram Krishna @ Ram Krishna Yadav Vs. I.O.C. & Ors.
1025
that no recording of ground movement
could have seen. On account of the said
acts and omissions 184 numbers of filled
drums containing Bitumen were stolen. The
said charge also depicts that the writ
petitioner made a confession to the Police
on 17.02.2015 in the presence of Sri Girja
Shankar DGM (RC), Mathura, Sri Dipanjan
Barai, Plant Incharge, BDFP, Mathura and
Sri Amrit Lal Gupta AM (RC) of handing
over the keys to Sri Bhagwan Singh
Security Supervisor BDFP, Mathura and
collecting the same from him, which even
otherwise shows that the petitioner had
admitted his guilt by means of the
confession.

6. In order to bring home the charges
as many as 9 documents were exhibited and
the prosecution produced (a) Sri Girija
Shankar, DGM (RC), Mathura; (b) Sri
Amrit Lal Gupta, AM (RC), BDFP,
Mathura; (c) Sri Dipanjan Barai Deputy
MGR (ENGG), Durgapur DO; (d) any
other witness considered necessary during
the inquiry proceedings.

7. Petitioner claims to have been
shocked and surprised to receive for charge
memo, tendered his reply/objection on the
same on 27.09.2015 denying the allegations
contained in the charge sheet dated
31.08.2015 coming up with stand that the
writ petitioner is innocent and the charges
so sought to be levelled upon him had no
leg to stand and he has not committed
misconduct. In the said reply it was also
stated that the writ petitioner at no point of
time had handed over the keys to Sri
Bhagwan Singh, Security Supervisor and
since other employees of the corporation
were also having keys of the depot in
question, thus, the theft, if any, might have
been occurred due to their fault and he had
not manipulated the CCTV Camera so as to
mask the alleged activity of commission of
theft and also specifically denied that he
had at no point of time made a confession
before the Police Authorities in the
presence of prosecution witness that he
handed over the key and he was negligent
and he had committed the said misconduct.

8. Consequent to the service of charge
sheet and submission of the reply by the
writ petitioner denying the charges the
Competent
Disciplinary
Authority
appointed one Sri Shailesh Kumar Singh,
the then Chief Terminal Manager, Agra
(TOP) as Inquiry Officer (IO) and Sri
Gaurav Gupta Deputy Mgr (P), Mathura BP
as presenting officer.

9. The inquiry officer proceeded with
the inquiry while fixing number of dates.
The Inquiry Officer after conducting the
inquiry tendered his report before the
competent
disciplinary
authority
on
20.05.2016 holding that charge Nos. 1 and
2 being partly proved.

10. On 13.06.2016 the General
Manager/IC
U.P.S.O.
II
Competent
Disciplinary Authority, third respondent
issued a disagreement note containing the
reasons for disagreement putting the writ
petitioner to notice to submit its objection
against the same. The writ petitioner claims
to
have
submitted
his
writing
representation/objection against disagreement
note dated 13.06.2016 on 20.07.2016.

11. The third respondent General
Manager, Incharge, U.P.S.O. II, Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd, Indian Oil Bhawan, E-8,
Sector 1, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar
thereafter proceeded to pass an order dated
01.08.2016, whereby the punishment of
dismissal was imposed upon the writ
petitioner.
1026 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. The writ petitioner being
aggrieved against the same preferred a
statutory appeal on 04.10.2016 before the
Appellate Authority, second respondent
Executive Director Incharge (Supplies),
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil
Bhawan G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra
(East), Mumbai which came to be rejected
by the second respondent, Executive
Director Incharge (Supplies), Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil Bhawan G-9,
Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East),
Mumbai on 02.12.2016.

13. Questioning the orders dated
01.08.2016 passed by the third respondent
General Manager, Incharge, U.P.S.O. II,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Indian Oil
Bhawan, E-8, Sector 1, NOIDA, Gautam
Buddh Nagar, dismissing the writ petitioner
from service as well as the order dated
02.12.2016
passed
by
the
second
respondent Executive Director Incharge
(Supplies), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Indian Oil Bhawan G-9, Ali Yavar Jung
Marg, Bandra (East) rejecting the appeal
the writ petitioner has filed the present writ
petition and has further sought a direction
to the respondents to permit the writ
petitioner to continue in service while
reinstating with full benefits.

14. This Court entertained the writ
petitioner on 22.12.2016 requiring the
respondents herein to file their response.

15. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 sworn
on 07.10.2021 by the Senior Manager
(Employee
Relations)
Indian
Oil
Corporation Ltd. to which the writ
petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit
also. A supplementary affidavit has also
been filed by the writ petitioner which is on
record.

16. Before embarking an inquiry upon
the arguments advanced by the rival parties
with relation to the legality and validity of
the orders impugned in the writ petition it
would be apposite to notice not only the
statutory provisions but also the contents of
charge memorandum, reply as well as
finding recorded by the Disciplinary and
the
Appellate
Authorities
(Relevant
Extracts).-

Statement of the imputation of
charges against Sri Ram Krishna Yadav
(petitioner) dated 31.08.2015:

Ref. No.: IR/R(30090)

Statement of the imputation in
support of the Articles of Charge framed
in respect of Shri Ram Krishna Yadav,
Emp No. 30090, Operations Officer,
BDFP, Mathura (under suspension).

It is alleged that Shri Ram Krishna
Yadav, Emp No. 30090 while posted as
Operations Officer, from May 2014 till
February
2015
at
BDFP,
Mathura,
committed the following acts of omission
and commission. The imputations are
narrated below:

1. That Shri Ram Krishna Yadav, Emp
No. 30090, Operations Officer, BDFP
Mathura was on 'B' shift duty at the plant
on 13.02.2015. As per standard procedure
upon closure of 'B' shift the officer on duty
is required to close the gates with key under
his custody and also seal the gate with
unique number plastic seals. Paper seal
under signature is also required to be
pasted on the keyhole cover of the locks,
containing signature of "B" shift officer as
well as the Security Supervisor on duty.
Keys of the locks were supposed to be
retained with the outgoing officer. In the
morning 'A' shift officer is required to
check lock, paper seal on lock, and unique
no. plastic seal on gate with record of
provision of the same by night shift officer
8 All. Ram Krishna @ Ram Krishna Yadav Vs. I.O.C. & Ors.
1027
and open the lock with the key available
with him.

However, Shri Ram Krishna Yadav
violated the standard procedure and
handed over the keys of the main gate to
the
Shri
Bhagwan
Singh,
Security
Supervisor after conclusion of his "B" shift
duty on 13.02.2015. He collected the keys
from Shri Bhagwan Singh afterwards.

Thus Shri Ram Krishna Yadav had
violated the standard procedure in handling
the keys of the main gate of the plant.

2. That CCTV footage of CAM 05
located near CRMB shows unwarranted
entry and exit of two trucks on 14.02.2015
morning hours between 00.18 hours and
02:18:19 hrs establishing unwarranted
movement of trucks within the plant
premises on the early morning hours of
14.02.2015. It was also observed that the
other CCTV cameras of the plant were also
disturbed with their directions facing
upwards to ensure that no recording of the
ground movement could be seen. Upon
taking inventory of the plant on the evening
of 14.02.2015 it was observed that there
was a shortage of 184 nos. of drums.

The sequence of events establishes the
fact that the act of handing over the keys by
Shri Ram Krishna Yadav to the Security
Supervisor before leaving the plant on the
closure of 'B' shift had resulted in the theft
of around 184 nos of filled bitumen drums
from
the
plant
on
the
night
of
13.02.2015/14.02.2015. It also points to
involvement of Shri Ram Krishna Yadav in
the alleged theft of 184 nos of filled drums
from the BDFP Plant on the night of
13/14.02.2015.
The
news
clippings
appearing in the news daily also points out
to the fact that Shri Ram Krishna Yadav
was also involved in the alleged theft.

Further, Shri Ram Krishna Yadav had
made a confession to the police on
17.02.2015 in presence of Shri Girija
Shankar,
DGM(RC),Mathura,
Shri
Dipanajan Barai, Plant Manager, BDFP
Mathura and Shri Amrit Lal Gupta,
AM(RC), Mathura of handing over the keys
to
Shri
Bhagwan
Singh,
Security
Supervisor before leaving BDFP Mathura
and
collecting
the
same
from
him
afterwards.

The confession made by Shri Rám
Krishna Yadav of handing over the keys
without following due procedure coupled
with the sequence of events which includes
tampering
with
the
CCTV
cameras,
unwarranted movement of trucks within the
premises
in
the
night/morning
of
13/14.02.2015 indicates connivance of Shri
Ram Krishna Yadav in the alleged theft of
around 184 filled bitumen drums from the
plant thereby resulting in loss to the
property of the Corporation.

Thus Shri Ram Krishna Yadav handed
over the keys which are in violation of the
standard procedure with an ulterior motive
thereby resulting in theft of around 184 nos
of filled bitumen drums from the plant on
the night of 13.02.2015 which has led to
loss to the property of the Corporation.
Further, the CCTV cameras of the plant
were also disturbed to ensure that no
recording of the ground movement could be
seen."

List of documents in the form of the
exhibit proposed to be relied upon by the
prosecution:

1. Report on physical inventory of
Drums done on 14.02.2015.

2.Statement dated 11.08.2015 of Sri
Girija Shankar, DGM (RC), Mathura.

3. Statement dated 11.08.2015 of Sri
Amrit Lal Gupta, AM (RC), BDFP,

Mathura.

4. Investigation Report ref. MRT/Theft
dated 16.02.2015.
1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Attendance Register for the month
of February, 2015.

6. Letter ref. Nil dated 15.02.2015
addressed to Police Incharge, Police
Station, Mathura Refinery.

7. Police charge sheet No. 80/2015
dated 12.04.2015.

8.CCTV footage from CAM 5.

9. Any other document/s considered
necessary
during
the
course
of
departmental inquiry proceedings.

List of witnesses relied upon by the
prosecution:

(a) Sri Girija Shankar, DGM (RC),
Mathura;

(b) Sri Amrit Lal Gupta, AM (RC),
BDFP, Mathura;

(c) Sri Dipanjan Barai Deputy MGR
(ENGG), Durgapur DO;

(d) any other witness considered
necessary during the inquiry proceedings.

Reply
of
the
petitioner
dated
27.09.2015 to the charge sheet dated
31.08.2015:

REPLY OF ALLEGATION NO. 1

This is to confirm you that I had
ensured proper locking of both the Main
Gates
(In/Out)
which
was
properly
recorded in the Seal Book and seals
bearing unique plastic Seal No. 5401662
(Big/Main Gate No.1) and seal No.
5401695 (Big/Main Gate No.2) as well as
Paper Seal was properly done on both the
Gates before I had left the premises on
13/02/2015. This is to further confirm that I
did not hand over the keys available with
me to Shri Bhagwan Singh, Security
Supervisor and I also did not have any
relationship to him. It may also kindly be
noted that keys were available with other
officers also in addition to the copy of
Master Keys for opening and closing these
locks.

REPLY OF ALLEGATION NO. 2

I was deployed in "B" shift and my
duty was 22:00 hours only on 12.02.2015
therefore, I am not in a position to
comments on the movements of Trucks
between 00:18 hours and 2:18:19 hours.
Sir, the BDF Plant is having a provision of
CCTV Cameras so it can be clearly seen
with the help of footage of other Cameras
that I did not indulge in disturbing the
position of the Cameras.

This is to also confirm that I do not
have any knowledge of disturbing the
position of the Cameras at all and how the
same was done. I did participate in the
physical Inventory of the drums but
theoretical availability was recorded based
on the inventory available with other
officers of the Plant. Physical Inventory
commenced at about 23:00 hours on
14.02.2015 and continued till next day
early morning i.e. 15.02.2015 at 2:00
hours.

I have already mentioned that I have
not handed over the keys to the Security
Supervisor, It is further stated that I have
no contribution towards news clippings.

I was badly beaten by the Police
including application of electric shock to
ensure forceful confession from me. I shall
be reiterating the truth of not handing over
the keys before the Hon'ble Court in due
course including torture by the Police to
get confession under extreme torture, threat
and electric shock.

I have already confirmed that I did not
give the keys to Security Supervisor and did
not indulge in tampering with CCTV
cameras and I am not in a position to
comments
of
the
Trucks
in
the
night/morning of 13/14.02.2015 as because
8 All. Ram Krishna @ Ram Krishna Yadav Vs. I.O.C. & Ors.
1029
I had already left the Bitumen Plant at
22:00 hours.

It is also to convey you that BDFP was
under
watch
and
ward
of
security
personnel under "C" shift i.e. 22:00 hours
to 06:00 hours am. No employee of the
Corporation
was
available
during
night/"C" shift of the Plant. I was not on
the duty at that time and hence all the
charges served upon me are based on
speculation, make me a scape-goat and
forceful confession obtained by Police.

Sir, I would like to inform you that I
have never been involved/indulged in any
unlawful activities for more than 15 years
of my service in the Corporation. I have
always followed the highest level of moral
standards along with Integrity, Dignity and
devotion
to
the
duties,
followed
orders/instructions word by word with
responsibilities and accountabilities. Sir, I
have also worked with highest level of
authorities at State Office level and keeping
the
records
of
very
sensitive
nature/confidential along with keys of
Almirah but there has not been any single
such instance of allegation.

I may humbly request you to be
exonerate from all the charges and kindly
may also revoke my suspension.

Relevant extract of the inquiry
proceedings dated 15.12.2015:

Examination-in-chief of P.W. 1 Sri
Giriji Shankar, DGM (CR), Mathura by
Presenting Officer:

Q 10: Were you called at Mathura
Refinery Police Station on 17.02.2015?
what happened there?

A10: Four
persons
from
BDFP
Plant/DGM (RC), Mathura office were
called in Mathura Police Station Refinery
on 17.02.2015. Myself, Sh. Dipanjan Barai
then PM BDFP, Mathura, Sh. Girija
Shankar DGM (RC), Mathura and Sh. Ram
Krishna Yadav (CSE) Ops Officer, BDFP,
Mathura, SSP Mathura was present in
Mathura Refinery Police Station at that
time
Sh.
Bhagwan
Singh
security
supervisor was already present there, SSP
Mathura asked us to introduce ourselves,
CSE and Security Supervisor were taken
for questioning by Police.

When CSE returned he accepted in
front of DGM (RC), Mathura, myself and
Sri Dipanjan Barai gave the key of main
gate to security supervisor on 13.02.2015
night.

Q 11: Did CSE accept his involvement
in front of the Police regarding the theft
that took place of 184 number of bitumen
drums that took place at BDFP, Mathura in
the night of 13.02.2015 and morning of
14.02.2015?

A 11: Yes, he confessed he was
involved in the theft in BDFP, Mathura on
13.02.2015 night and that he had handed
over the keys of the main gate to security
supervisor
Sh.
Bhagwan
Singh
on
13.02.2015 night in front of Police, myself
Sh. Dipanjan Barai and Girija Shankar.

Cross examination of P.W. 1, Girja
Shankar DGM (RC), Mathura dated
15.12.2015.

Q 5: Was any manhandling done of
Police while questioning CSE in front of
you?

A5: No man handling was done but
CSE
was
questioned
in
threatening
language.
Q 6: Do you remember what
Police asked the CSE?

A 6: No, I don't remember exactly.

Q 7: When CSE was taken away by the
Police for some time and when he returned
did he appear to you he had been man
handled?

A 7: I do not know exactly what
happened inside but he came out weeping.
1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Q 8: When verbal confession was
obtained from CSE Police in front of you
after CSE came out from inside was any
manhandling done?

A 8: No manhandling was done but in
order to threatening language was used.

Examination-in-chief of P.W. 2 Sri
Amrit Lal Gupta AM (RC) BDFP,
Mathura dated 18.01.2016.

Q 7: Were you called at Mathura
Refinery Police Station on 17.02.2015?
What happened there?

A 7: Yes, I received a call from DGM
(RC) on 17.02.2015 morning to report to
Mathura Refinery Police Station as he
received a call from Mathura Refinery
Police Station. I along with DGM (RC)
Mathura and Amrit Lal Gupta, AM (RC)
reported at Mathura Refinery Police
Station around 11:00 hours CSE reached
there after 10-15 mins. P.W.
2:
Examination-in-chief of P.W. 2 dated
18.01.2016

Q 4: Did any Police official other than
SSP also interrogated CSE inside Police
Station?

A 4: Other senior officials were also
present but mainly SSP, Mathura was
interrogating with us.

Q 5: Was CSE taken away for some
time for interrogation within the Police
Station?

A 5: Yes, he was taken away out of the
cabin of 2-3 minutes.

Relevant extract of the inquiry report
dated 20.05.2016.-

"Indian Oil Corporation Limited

(Marketing Division)

Ref: EO/SKS/2015-16/RKY/30090

Subject: Enquiry Officer's Report on
Disciplinary Enquiry against shri Ram
Krishna, Employee No. 30090, 00 U/S,
Mathura
Terminal
A,
Charge
sheet
reference: IR/R(30090) dtd 31.08.2015.

DE in his summing up report has also
submitted that CSE was tortured and
confession was extracted from him by
police under duress which has been denied
by CSE, which is yet to pass the judicial
scrutiny, does not prove the involvement of
CSE.

All the witnesses presented by the PO
confirmed confession by the CSE in
Mathura Refinery Police Station in their
presence of handing over the keys to the
Security Supervisor, Shri Bhagwan Singh
on 13.02.205 by the CSE. They also
confirmed in their deposition that the CSE
was taken away from the room, where they
were sitting together in front of Police
officials, for some time and after returning
the CSE confessed the handing over of the
keys. PW1 in his deposition has confirmed
in cross examination that the CSE came out
weeping. The question and answer is
reproduced below:

Q7: When CSE was taken away by the
police for some time and when he returned
did it appear to you he was manhandled?

A7: I don't know exactly what
happened inside but he came out weeping.

Hence after examining the exhibits
and deposition by the witnesses the charge
is only partially" proved."

Charge No. 2:

"Tilting of camera was done in the
night of 13-14.02.2015 is also conclusively
proved through the recordings and analysis
of CCTV footage. At least two of them
(CAM 27 and CAM 31) were tilted when
the SCE was present in the BDFP plant.
Since theft took place on the same night
hence the position of cameras was
disturbed so that ground movement could
not be recorded. Hence this charge no. 2 is
also partially proved.
8 All. Ram Krishna @ Ram Krishna Yadav Vs. I.O.C. & Ors.
1031

Conclusion: In view of the facts
presented through exhibits, deposition of
witnesses and findings and conclusion
against each charge, it is concluded that
both the charges leveled against the CSE
has been partially established."

Relevant
extract
of
the
disagreement note dated 13.06.2016:

"1. Shri Amrit Lal Gupta, AM(T),
Mathura Terminal(PW-1), Shri Dipankan
Barai, the then BDFP. incharge now
Dy.Manager(Engg), Durgapur BP(PW-2)
and Shri Girija Shankar, DGM(RC),
Mathura (PW-3) have clearly stated that
they were present in the police station when
Shri Ram Krishna Yadav had admitted of
handing over the keys to Shri Bhagwan
Singh, Security Supervisor on 13.02.2015.
All three have confirmed that Shri Ram
Krishna was taken away from the room and
after returning he had confessed to handing
over the keys of the main gate to the
security supervisor Shri Bhagwan Singh on
13.02.2015.

Shri Ram Krishna in his defense has
said that he was tortured and confession
was extracted from him by police under
duress. In his deposition dated 21.03.2016
be has inter alia stated that "The SSP told
me that he is not saying correct and asked
the SHO and other policeman to take me
inside another room. When I reached there
they removed my clothes and started
beating me with stick and "patta"(a type of
belt), they continued to beat me for 15-20
mins. When I got unconscious they
sprinkled water on. my face and then gave
me tea to drink. After drinking tea they
asked me to tell correct version of the
incident, when I repeatedly told that I am
not involved in the incident and I do not
know who is involved then they used
electric shock on my private parts. After
that they took me back to SSP. SSP again
asked me to tell the correct version. SSP
Mathura also told me that other officials of
Indian Oil sitting in the room are not lying
and you tell the truth/correct version. After
that SHO and CO started to beat me in
front of everyone. After that I told SSP that
I am not involved in the theft but in order to
avoid further torture I told her to write
whatever she wants. Then one policeman
came with a piece of blank paper and took
my signature on it.

The version of Shri Ram Krishna
Yadav that he was tortured has not been
corroborated by the prosecution witnesses.
In this regard PW1 in his deposition has
confirmed that when CSE returned to the
room he was weeping. In response to Q8
whether any manhandling was done PW-1
had deposed that "no manhandling was
done but threatening language was used".

Representation of the writ petitioner
dated 20.07.2016 to the disagreement
note dated 20.05.2016:

"This
particular
fact/alleged
confession cannot be treated true due to
the following reasons:-

(a)
the
CSE
denied
any
such
purporting confession of handing over keys
to Security Supervisor, Shri Bhagwan
Singh.

(b) The CSE was tortured by the
Police, it is a well proved fact.
(c) The alleged purporting confession in
Mathura Refinery Police Station is nothing
but a concocted story of PW-1, PW-2 and
PW-3 and other management officials of
RC/BDFP, Mathura Refinery which has no
factual or legal footing as per Evidence
Act."

Order dated 01.08.2016 dismissing
the writ petitioner from service passed
1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by
the
Competent
Disciplinary
Authority:

"Having applied my mind, and taking
into
consideration
the
fact
and
circumstances as brought out on records, I
agree with the findings of the Enquiry
Officer and find you guilty of the following
acts of misconduct:-

7(1) Theft, fraud or dishonesty in
connection with the business or property of
the Corporation

7(5) Acting in a manner prejudicial to
the interests of the Corporation

7(9) Neglect of work or negligence in
the performance of duty

7(10) Causing damage to any property
of the Corporation either willfully or
through negligence

Taking into consideration the gravity
of the act of misconduct proved against
you, I hereby inflict upon you the penalty of
"Dismissal" as a measure of disciplinary
action.

You are further informed that as per
provision contained in Rule 38 of the
Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1980
of the Corporation, you may, if you so
desires, prefer an appeal against the order
of penalty within 60 days from the date of
receipt of this order. The appeal may be
addressed to the Appellate Authority
through the undersigned."

Memo of Appeal dated 04.10.2016:

ARGUMENTS IN APPEAL:-

A (I) That I (CSE/Appellant) denied
any such purporting confession of handing
over the keys to Security Supervisor, Shri
Bhagwan Singh or any other security
persons.

ii)
That
I
(CSE/Appellant)
was
tortured by the Police, it is a well proved
fact.

Iii) That I (CSE/Appellant) denied all
the Charges fully during proceedings.

D (ii) As the prosecution/management
witnesses are also telling a lie and
fabricated
statements
that
alleged
confession
was
made
by
me
(CSE/Appellant). Whereas, P.W.-3 in his
cross examination on 02.03.2016 Q2 & A2:
said "....... but Security Supervisor Sh.
Bhagwan Singh confessed in the Police
Station in front of all officers of IOCL
present there..."

(iii) Moverover, the alleged confession
by these witnesses was concocted story and
against the documentary evidence. The
PO/management was bound to produce
recorded alleged/purported confessional
statement during the proceedings but failed
to produce the same and hence, no
penalty/punishment can be awarded on the
basis of any such oral evidence/statements
against the documentary evidence.

(iv) It means and proves that on
17.02.2015
no
confession/alleged
confession/confession statements was made
as
alleged
by
above
three
prosecution/management witnesses.

M (i) Unauthentic and selective video
footage of only two/three cameras were
shown by PO out of 34 CCTV cameras
installed in Bitumen Plant as per PE-7. But
only two or three video footage contains
CD shown in proceedings and other
footage categorically had not been shown
during enquiry as more footage had been
hidden due to some vested interest of said
witnesses. No officer who was monitoring
CCTV cameras/their maintenance was
produced
for
his
observation/cross
examination,
which
itself
a
doubtful/suspicion. No conclusion could be
drawn on the basis of such CCTV footage
nor may it be treated as evidence in the
proceedings.

(ii)
CCTV
footage
which
was
presented as evidence has not been
compared with the original nor a certificate
8 All. Ram Krishna @ Ram Krishna Yadav Vs. I.O.C. & Ors.
1033
of original/authenticity has been produced
by PO/Management during departmental
inquiry. Moreover, such footage neither
could prove anything nor did it have any
evidentiary value.

(iii) It is not possible for a prudent
person that when he was present in a room
then he could not see the activities outside
any away from the room. Neither a person
can see behind his back nor can do
anything."

Appellate Order dated 02.12.2016:

"8) With regard to your contentions in
your appeal, I find that :

i Inquiry proceedings were held on
02.11.2015,
26.11.2015,
15.12.2015,
18.01.2016, 02.03.2016 and 21.03.2016.

ii 3 Management Witnesses and 11
prosecution exhibits i.e. PW 1 to PW 3 and
PE 1 to PE 11 were produced during the
Inquiry proceedings.

Iii Defense has presented DW1 as
witness and DE1 as defense exhibit.

iv The inquiry has been held as per
Rule 31 of the CDA Rules, 1980 and in
compliance to natural justice.

v. After denial of the charges by you,
the facility of defending was provided to
you and you chose Shri Asim Tiwari, CM
(RS),
UPSO
II
as
your
Defending
Employee.

vi. Inquiry was held in your presence
and in the presence of DE including
submission of evidences and adducing
witnesses.
Examination
and
cross
examination of all witnesses were held.

Vii. The requested documents were
made available to you during the inquiry
held on 15.12.2015.

viii All 3 Management Witnesses
adduced in the inquiry proceedings have
mentioned that you had confessed to the
Investigation Officer in the Police Station
in front of them that after closure of B shift
on 13.02.2015, you handed over the keys of
the Main Gate of BDFP Mathura to Shri
Bhagwan Singh, the Security Supervisor
and that Shri Bahgwan Singh returned the
keys to you next day early morning
somewhere
near
Mathura
Refinery
Township.

ix During cross examination of the 3
Management Witnesses nothing has come
on record to refute the evidence adduced by
the said witnesses.

x.
During
the
inquiry
held
on
21.03.2016, to a question of Inquiry Officer
(IO) to Defending Employee (DE), DE has
mentioned that "I do not have any other
witnesses and with above I conclude my
presentation".

xi. Further to a question of IO to you,
you have mentioned that "I would like to
say that I am not involved in this incidence
and the charges against me are not correct.
Hence I request you for justice". Thereafter
IO advised to submit Summing Up and
accordingly PO and you/DE submitted
Summing UP.

Xii. CDA while taking a view on the
findings of the Inquiry Officer by a detailed
order has differed with the findings of the
Inquiry Officer which was furnished to you
for submitting your written representation.

Xiii. The CDA vide final order dated
01.08.2016 has passed a reasoned speaking
order
and
inflicted
the
penalty
of
'Dismissal' upon you.

I have applied my mind and I find that
you have not brought out any new facts/
circumstances
in
your
Appeal
dated
04.10.2016,
which
may
warrant
my
interference with the Final Order of the
CDA dated 01.08.2016. Further the penalty
of "Dismissal" is found to be just and
proportionate to the proved acts of
misconduct committed by you. Accordingly,
I hereby reject your appeal."
1034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Rule 26 of the Conduct, Discipline
and Appeal Rules, 1980:

Rule 26 Suspension

(1) The Disciplinary Authority or any
other authority empowered in that behalf
by the Management by general or special
order may place an employee under
suspension.-

(a) where a disciplinary proceeding
against him is contemplated or is pending;
or

(b) where a case against him in
respect of any criminal offence is under
investigation or trial.

(2) An employee who is detained in
police custody, whether on a criminal
charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding
48 hours shall be deemed to have been
suspended with effect from the date of
detention, by an order of the Disciplinary
Authority,
and
shall
remain
under
suspension until further orders.