Patna High Court
The Managing Director, Hindustan Antibiotic LimitedversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The intra‑court appeal is dismissed, confirming that the dismissal and appellate orders were invalid due to lack of competent authority and violation of natural justice.
Summary
The case concerned the dismissal of a Junior Medical Representative of Hindustan Antibiotics Limited, who was dismissed by the General Manager (Marketing) on 5 December 2000 following a charge‑memo and enquiry. The employee challenged the dismissal, arguing that the General Manager was not the appointing authority and that no delegation of disciplinary power had been shown, and that the order violated principles of natural justice. The Single Judge quashed both the dismissal order and the subsequent appellate order, holding them illegal and perverse. On appeal, the employer contended that the General Manager had been delegated authority under Part‑III Order No. 281 dated 10 April 1991 and that the employee had been given adequate notice. The High Court affirmed the Single Judge’s decision, finding no evidence of lawful delegation, noting the non‑speaking nature of the orders, and emphasizing that intra‑court appellate jurisdiction does not permit re‑hearing of facts absent patent illegality. Consequently, the intra‑court appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The dismissal order was passed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority without lawful delegation of disciplinary powers.
- Whether the employer had established a valid delegation of dismissal authority to the General Manager (Marketing).
- Whether the dismissal order violated principles of natural justice by being non‑speaking and lacking an independent application of mind.
- Whether the appellate order of 24 January 2001 addressed the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal.
- Whether the intra‑court appellate bench can interfere with the Single Judge’s findings on facts absent patent illegality or perversity.
Subjects
- service law
- disciplinary action
- dismissal
- delegation of authority
- natural justice
- intra‑court appeal
- writ jurisdiction
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.398 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5334 of 2001
======================================================
1. The Managing Director, Hindustan Antibiotic Limited Pimpri, Pune,
Government of India undertaking.
2. The General Manager (Marketing) Hindustan Antibiotics Limited, Pimpri,
Pune.
3. The Divisional Manager, Hindustan Antibiotics Limited, Road No. 5,
Rajendra Nagar, Patna- 16.
4. The Divisional Manager having his office in Hindustan Antibiotics Limited,
Calcutta.
5. Hindustan Antibiotics Limited, through Company Secretary, Pimpri, Pune, A
Government of India Undertaking.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizer,
Government of India, New Delhi, having his office in Shastri Nagar, Dr.
Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi.
2. Abinash Kumar Sinha, son of Sri Baijnath Sahay, resident of D Block,
Kadamkuan, Police Station Kadamkuan, District Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Astitva Vatsa, Advocate
Mr.Amitabh Sohan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Sr. CGC
Mr. Satyendra Kr. Jha, CGC
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Rupak Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vikrant Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 27-02-2026
Re.: I.A. No. 01 of 2025
The present interlocutory application has been filed
seeking condonation of delay of 04 years 04 months and 19
Patna High Court L.P.A No.398 of 2023 dt.27-02-2026
2/10
days in preferring the present appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the interlocutory
application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. I.A. No. 01/2025 stands allowed.
Re.: L.P.A.No. 398 of 2023
4. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
against the judgment dated 25.08.2018 passed by the learned
Single Judge in CWJC No. 5334 of 2001, whereby the writ
petition preferred by the respondents/writ petitioner was
allowed and the punishment order dated 05.12.2000 as well as
the appellate order dated 24.01.2001 was quashed .
5. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner had sought
the following reliefs:
“4(a) That the respondents be directed to pay to
the petitioner terminal benefit namely leave
encashment, General Provident Fund amount
and gratuity, consequent upon the quashing the
order dated 24.1.2001 and 5.12.2000 with
penal interest at current market rate.
(b) That the writ in the nature of certiorari be
issued quashing the appellate order dated
24.1.2001 as contained in Annexure-1.
(c) That the writ in the nature of certiorari be
issued quashing the order dated 20.12.2000 and
5.12.2000 as contained in Annexure-2 and 3.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.398 of 2023 dt.27-02-2026
3/10
(d) That the respondents be directed to accept
resignation of the petitioner and pay his
terminal benefits as he completes the qualified
period of service.
(e) That any other relief or reliefs for which the
petitioner is entitled be granted by this Hon’ble
Court.”
6. The brief facts of the case are that the writ
petitioner joined as a Junior Medical Representative with
Hindustan Antibiotics Limited in the year 1985. He continued in
service to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned and his
case was even recommended for promotion to the post of
Regional Manager. However, a charge-memo dated 19.11.1999
was issued to him in relation to the period 1992 to 1995,
alleging irregularities during his tenure in the Nepal area. The
allegations, inter alia, pertained to supply of medicines to the
distributors without confirmed orders, slow movement of
stocks, acceptance of part payments against liquidations of
stocks, and grant of special rates to distributors while adjusting
outstanding dues. An enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry
Officer, who submitted his report dated 13.9.2000 holding all
the charges proved. Thereafter, a second show cause notice
dated 09.10.2000 was issued to the petitioner, wherein it was
acknowledged that the enquiry proceedings had been conducted
Patna High Court L.P.A No.398 of 2023 dt.27-02-2026
4/10
in his absence. The petitioner was called upon to submit his
reply to the enquiry report and to show cause as to why he
should not be dismissed from service. Subsequently, the General
Manager (Marketing), by order dated 05.12.2000, dismissed the
petitioner from the services with effect from 05.12.2000,
without issuing any further notice. The petitioner preferred an
appeal, which was dismissed by the Managing Director of the
Hindustan Antibiotics Limited by order dated 24.1.2001.
7. The learned Writ Court, after hearing the parties,
passed the following orders:
“3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
raised a small point for consideration to the effect
that the petitioner was promoted as Area Executive
in the marketing division by an order issued by the
Chief General Manager (Marketing), who is the
appointing authority of the petitioner herein,
however, the punishment order dated 5.12.2000 has
been passed by the General Manager (Marketing),
hence on this ground alone, the order of
punishment dated 5.12.200 is fit to be set aside
since the petitioner could not have been dismissed
by an authority who is lower in rank to the
appointing authority. Reference in this regard has
been made to a judgment reported in AIR 1964 SC
600 (Moti Ram Deka Vs. G.M., North East
Frontier Railway & Ors.). The next issue raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioner is that bare
perusal of the punishment order dated 5.12.2000
Patna High Court L.P.A No.398 of 2023 dt.27-02-2026
5/10
would show that neither any opportunity of hearing
was given to the petitioner nor any reason
whatsoever has been furnished in the said order of
dismissal, hence the order of dismissal is fit to be
set aside on this ground alone. Reference in this
regard has been made to a judgment reported in
(2002) 10 SCC 351 [State of Bihar & Ors. Vs.
Lakshmi Shankar Prasad] and the one reported in
2005(3) PLJR 304 [Md. Hassan Ansari vs. The
State of Bihar & Ors.] The last submission made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
once the appellate order dated 24.1.2001 does not
deal with any of the issues raised while filing the
memo of appeal on 7.1.2001, the appellate order
dated 24.1.2001 is perverse and fit to be set aside.
4. The respondents have not controverted the
aforesaid pleadings and submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, hence the
grounds raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner for assailing the order of punishment
dated 5.12.2000 and the appellate order dated
24.1.2001 are held to be cogent and legal, thus for
the reasons discussed herein above in the preceding
paragraphs, as argued by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the order of punishment dated
5.12.2000 and the appellate order dated 24.1.2001
are held to illegal and perverse and are accordingly
quashed.”
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
learned Single Judge erred in holding that the punishment order
was passed by an authority junior to the appointing authority. It
Patna High Court L.P.A No.398 of 2023 dt.27-02-2026
6/10
is submitted that the General Manager (Marketing) had been
duly delegated disciplinary powers vide Part-III Order No. 281
dated 10.04.1991, prior to initiation of the proceeding, and
therefore the dismissal order was passed by a competent
authority. It is further submitted that adequate opportunity was
granted to the writ petitioner, notices were issued and the
petitioner was aware of the proceedings but chose not to
participate.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single
Judge rightly held that the order of dismissal dated to be
unsustainable in law, as the same was passed by an authority not
competent to impose the major penalty of dismissal. It is further
submitted that no material establishing lawful delegation was
produced before the Writ Court. It is further submitted that the
dismissal order is ex facie non-speaking and does not disclose
any independent application of mind, and that the principles of
natural justice were violated.
10. The limited issue that arises for consideration
before this Court is whether the learned Single Judge was
justified in quashing the dismissal order dated 05.12.2000 on the
ground that it was passed by the General Manager (Marketing),
Patna High Court L.P.A No.398 of 2023 dt.27-02-2026
7/10
who was not the appointing authority of the writ petitioner, in
absence of any material placed before the Writ Court to
establish lawful delegation of disciplinary powers and whether
such finding warrants interference in exercise of intra court
appellate jurisdiction.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have carefully perused the materials available on record, as well
the impugned order. Upon such consideration, it transpires that
the foundational fact of the case is not in dispute that the writ
petitioner was appointed and promoted by the Chief General
Manager (Marketing), who was the appointing authority.
However, the order of dismissal dated 05.12.2000 was passed by
the General Manager (Marketing).
12. The learned Single Judge held that a major penalty
of dismissal cannot be imposed by an authority subordinate to
the appointing authority and relied upon the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Moti Ram Deka vs. G.M., North
East Frontier Railway & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 600.
13. It is evident that no document evidencing
delegation of disciplinary power in favour of the General
Manager (Marketing) was placed on record before the learned
Single Judge. The burden to establish competence of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.398 of 2023 dt.27-02-2026
8/10
disciplinary authority lay squarely upon the employer, which
was not discharged.
14. The dismissal order dated 05.12.2000, on its face,
does not disclose reasons nor indicate independent application
of mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the
second show cause notice. The learned Single Judge also
recorded that the respondents/appellants had not controverted
the pleadings and submissions advanced on behalf of the writ
petitioner. In such circumstances, the finding that the order was
non-speaking and unsustainable cannot be said to be perverse.
15. Similarly, the appellate order dated 24.01.2001
was found to be non-speaking and not dealing with the grounds
raised in the memorandum of appeal. The learned Single Judge,
therefore, held both the punishment order and the appellate
order to be illegal and perverse.
16. It is also noteworthy that even subsequently, in the
review proceedings, no resolution or delegation order was
brought on record to substantiate the plea that the General
Manager (Marketing) was duly authorized. This fortifies the
conclusion that the learned Single Judge decided the writ
petition on the basis of the materials then available on record
and in accordance with settled principles of service
Patna High Court L.P.A No.398 of 2023 dt.27-02-2026
9/10
jurisprudence.
17. We are also of the considered view that the
competence of the authority imposing the penalty goes to the
very root of the matter. When an order of dismissal is passed by
an authority whose jurisdiction is under serious doubt, and when
no contemporaneous material was produced before the Writ
Court to substantiate lawful delegation, the learned Single Judge
was justified in exercising judicial review. The argument of
delegation, unsupported by record at the relevant stage, cannot
be permitted to cure a foundational defect in jurisdiction.
18. This Court, in exercise of intra-court appellate
jurisdiction, does not sit as a court of re-hearing on facts to
substitute its own view merely because another interpretation
may be possible. The scope of interference is limited to
examining whether the judgment under appeal suffers from
patent illegality or perversity. At this juncture, it is pertinent to
take note of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court while deciding the case of Narendra & Co. (P) Ltd. v.
Workmen, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340, wherein following
observation was made:
“5. .. Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on
a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench
reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single
Patna High Court L.P.A No.398 of 2023 dt.27-02-2026
10/10
Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same.
Merely because another view or a better view is
possible, there should be no interference with or
disturbance of the order [Narendra & Co. (P) Ltd.
v. Workmen, WP No. 41489 of 2002, decided on 14-
3-2008 (KAR)] passed by the Single Judge, unless
both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.”
19. Upon independent scrutiny of the record, we find
that the learned Single Judge applied the correct legal principles
to the facts as presented before him. The reasoning does not
disclose any error apparent on the face of the record.
20. The present intra court appeal, therefore, stands
dismissed being devoid of any merit.
21. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Sujit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.03.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…