Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Sarojkanta Behera vs Steel Authority Of India on 20 January, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021
Reserved on 13.01.2026 Pronounced on 20.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Sarojkanta Behera, aged about 49 years, S/o-
Keshab Chandra Behera, AT- Qr. No. C-169,
Sector- 6, Rourkela-769002, Dist- Sundargarh
at present working as A.G.M., SMS-2, Rourkela
Steel Plant, Rourkela, Dist Sundargarh.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its
Secretary, Department of Steel, Govt. of India,
Udyoga Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Rourkela Steel Plant
& Appellate Authority, Rourkela Steel Plant,
AT/PO- Rourkela-II, Dist-Sundargarh-
769001.
3. Executive Director (Works) Rourkela Steel
Plant & Disciplinary Authority, Rourkela Steel
Plant, AT/PO- Rourkela-II, Dist- Sundargarh-
769001.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. B.P.Tripathy, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. H.M.Dhal, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.01.20
16:50:13 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The applicant, Sri Sarojkanta Behera, at present working as AGM, SMS-2 in Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha, has filed this OA U/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 seeking to set aside the order under Reference No. EMM: 2018-656 dated 04.12.2019 wherein and whereunder the ED (Works), RSP, as Disciplinary Authority, has imposed the punishment of reduction of his basic pay by one stage from Rs.
54690/- to Rs. 53090/- with cumulative effect and will not earn his increment during the punishment period of one year at the conclusion of the major penalty proceedings initiated against him under Rule 25 of SAIL (CDA) Rules, 1977 vide charge memorandum No. EMM-2018-656 dated 14.05.2018. He has also sought to set aside the order under Reference No. EMM-2020- 656 dated 31.07.2020 passed by the CEO, RSP as Appellate Authority in rejecting the appeal dated 27.12.2019 preferred by him against the order dated 14.05.2018 of the DA under Rule 33 of SAIL (CDA) Rules, 1977.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021
2. The grounds in support of the relief, as culled out from records and in course of hearing, are that the ED (Works), RSP/Disciplinary Authority and CEO, RSP/Appellate Authority became judge of their own cause, in issuing charge sheet and imposing the punishment/upholding the order of punishment since the applicant was the initiator of the procurement of the materials mentioned in the charge sheet and the procurement was made on the approval accorded by the ED (Works) and the CEO, SAIL to the report of duly constituted Screening Committee.
But, no such proceedings were drawn against the Members of the Screening Committee or ED (Works) or CEO of the SAIL although all of them actively participated in the procurement process.
Second limb of his argument is that the Inquiry Officer in its report dated 08.07.2019 while holding negligence in performance of duty by the applicant as established, found that failure to maintain proper devotion to duty and action in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Company as not established, to which the applicant has also objected to in his representation but the DA without taking into consideration and RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 marshalling the points raised by him, imposed the punishment only by observing that "On careful consideration of the facts & circumstances of the case, inquiry report and the reply of Sri Saroj Kanta Behera, it is seen that Shri Saroj Kanta Behera, has shown negligence in performance of duty thereby committed misconduct as per Clause 5(9) read with clause 4(1)(ii) of SAIL, CDA Rules, 1977. I also find that principle of natural justice was adhered to during the enquiry proceedings and enough opportunity was given to Shri Behera to defend his case, which he availed", which is in violation of the principles of natural justice/audi alteram partem and law being an unreasoned order. Thirdly, the IO took note of the documents produced by the SAIL even though those documents were not formed the subject matter of the charge sheet. His last limb of submission is that the findings/conclusion of the IO, DA and AA were based on ipse dixit, conjecture, surmises and on no evidence. Ld. Counsel for the applicant in support of his arguments, has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 Lucknow Vs Ram Prakash Singh, Civil Appeal No. 14724/2024, Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab Natinal Bank, 2009 (2) SCC 570, M.V.Bijlani Vs UOI, 2006 (5) SCC 88, and the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Malaya Ranjan Dash Vs State of Odisha & Ors, 2025 (II) ILR-CUT-311.
3. Respondents-SAIL filed their counter as against the facts stated by the applicant in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.24 but did not meet and answer the grounds of challenge made by the applicant in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.6 of the OA, except stating in paragraph 20 of the counter that "the applicant has absolutely no ground to challenge the impugned order. The applicant has been negligent in the discharge".
4. The stand point of the respondents, as culled out from the pleadings and during course of hearing, is that the Original Equipment Manufacturer [OEM] of 'VVVF Drives Vacon-Make' was/is M/s Vacon Drives Controls Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. The applicant while working as Manager of Coke Oven Plant, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela prepared the estimation of purchase Requisition and Proprietary Certificate for finalizing RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 the estimation of the tender process for procurement of spare parts 'VVVF Drives Vacon-Make' during Sept. 2012 to 2013 on the basis of scanned copy of budgetary reference No. VACON/2012/11/SS, valued at Rs. 49.79 lakh, of M/s Pradeep Trading Co., Rourkela, Odisha without collecting budgetary offer directly from Original Equipment Manufacturer [OEM] of 'VVVF Drives Vacon-Make', i.e. M/s Vacon Drives Controls Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, in gross violation of the procedure provided under PCP-
2009 of SAIL by the applicant since PTC was not the authorized dealer and acted as the channel partner of the M/s Vacon Drives Controls Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. In this process, the spare parts were procured from M/s PTC on payment of Rs. 48.97 Lakh with an accessible value of Rs. 34.77 lakh, which has caused undue and wrongful loss of Rs. 14.20 lakh to RSP which could have been avoided had the purchase were directly made from OEM. In addition, the hierarchical nature of the organization entails that the approval process has various checks and balances for proper decision making and adherence to rules, regulations, procedures and practices. The Screening Committee required to scrutinize RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 the indent with reference to availability of all prescribed enclosures, certificate, estimates along with basic data, name of the supplier suggested. It is, therefore, obvious, the said scrutiny would have verified the availability of the budgetary offer which was in fact made in the purported letter head of the OEM, which was the responsibility of the applicant. The applicant received the reference at his E-mail Id. from a party [M/s PTS] other than the OEM and processed the same without making necessary verification as per procedure under PCP-2009. The applicant failed to show any instruction of the OEM establishing relationship between PTC and OEM. Thus, it was preposterous to process procurement based on the scanned copy of the offer of the OEM received from PTC. The role of the applicant in such a matter is not simply as a receiver of an E-mail and process the same rather it was obligatory on his part to verify the budgetary estimate from a proprietary item from the OEM. Thus, the applicant failed to discharge his onerous duties and, thus, acted negligently was duly established in course of inquiry. CBI Case No. RC-04(A)-2016/BBS was also registered relating to the RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 procurement of the spare parts 'VVVF Drives Vacon-Make', in question, wherein the Investigating Officer and Inspector of CBI, ACB, Bhubaneswar after due inquiry submitted its report stating therein that the applicant prepared detailed estimation of the spare parts on the basis of the offer price received from M/s PTC.
The attached budgetary offer/price schedule received through E-
mail was forged by M/s PTC where prices of spare parts were deliberately increased on higher sides and name of PTC added as authorized distributor of M/s Vacon Drives Controls Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. The applicant had not verified the genuineness of pricelist/estimation/budgetary offer of the spare parts while preparing the detailed estimation of purchase requisition used in tender process. For the aforesaid act and conduct, departmental proceedings was initiated against the applicant; matter was inquired into; the IO held the inquiry in accordance with the rules by giving full opportunity to the applicant in the inquiry and submitted its report holding the applicant negligent in discharging his duties, copy of which was supplied to the applicant and he submitted his defence; the DA after considering RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 the records as well as the report, imposed the punishment, which was also upheld by the AA in a reasoned and speaking order. Hence, according to the respondents, there being no illegality, infirmity or impropriety starting from the proceeding till its conclusion, and the findings reached by the IO was based on evidence, interference in the matter is not called for and the OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. In support of his claim, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs P.Gunasekaran, AIR 2015 SC 545.
5. After giving due consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have perused the records including the decisions relied on by the parties.
6. The Article of Charge framed against the applicant reads as under:
"Shri Saroj Kanta Behera while working as Manager, Coke Oven Plant, Roukala Plant, SAIL, Rourkela has violated the laid down rules/circulars in clearing/approving of Purchase Requisition and Proprietary Certificate (PR.No1202002616 dated 11.04.2013) on the basis of budgetary offer/price list supplied by M/s Pradeep Trading Co., Rourkela.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 That Shri Saroj Kanta Behera, the then Manager, Coke Oven Plant has prepared/processed/cleared an indent for purchase of "VVVF Drives, assessories:
Make M/s Vacon" during 2012-2013 for newly commissioned Coke Dry Battery No.6, Coke Ovens of Rourkela Steel Plant, SAIL, Rourkela from M/s Vacon Drives & Controls, Unit-Bangalore at Rs. 51,01,850/- through proprietary mode of tendering on the basis of documents received from M/s Pradeep Trading Co. without making any correspondences/verification with Original Equipment Manufacturer(OEM) i.e, M/s Vacon Drives & Control Pvt. Ltd. Chennai.
That Shri Saroj Kanta Behera was posted as a Manager at Coke Ovens Plant of RSP, Rourkela prepared detailed estimation of spare parts "VVVF Drives, Vacon Make" used in tender process during September 2012 to September 2013 and did not collect price list/estimate/Budgetary offer of Spare parts from Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) i.e, M/s Vacon Drives & Control Pvt. Ltd. Chennai.
That RSP Rourkela, Odisha followed guidelines of Purchase Contract Procedure, 2009 (PCP-2009) for procurement of spare parts "VVVF Drives-Vacon Make"
during September 2012 to September 2013. As per PCP-2009 Clause 2.4, it would be the prime responsibility of the indentor to prepare judicious estimate of the Indent. The Indentor would take the help of Engineering Services and other Centralized Agencies, if so required, for the preparation of judicious estimate using scientific/technical methods. The detailed estimate signed by the Head of the Indenting Department would be enclosed with the Indent. For the procurement of proprietary items, supplier's price list/rates along with the applicable discounts would be obtained for preparing the estimate. Such list should be obtained directly from the manufacturer only and the price list supplied by dealer/authorized agents should RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 not be considered unless directed by the manufacturers.
That M/s Pradeep Trading Co., (Shri Pradeep Kumar Das, Proprietor) was a Proprietorship firm, acted informally as a channel partner of M/s Vacon Drives & Controls Pvt. Ltd. Chennai during 2012 & 2013 as no contract/agreement was traceable for that period. Instead of collecting budgetary offer (supplier's price List) of the Spare Parts "VWWF Drives Vacon-Make"
from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) i.e, M/s Vacon Drives Controls Pvt. Ltd. Chennai which was mandatory as per PCP-2009, a scan copy of the Budgetary Offer, Ref No. VACON/2012/11/SS valued Rs 49.79 Lakhs dated 11.10.2012 was received through E-mail attachment from Shri Pradeep Kumar Das, Prop. of M/s Pradeep Trading Co. Rourkela by Shri Saroj Kanta Behera, the then Manager of RSP Rourkela Coke Oven Plant on 12.10.2012 & 11.04.2013 & same was wrongly and dishonestly treated as Original Budgetary Offer of M/s Vacon Drives & Control Pvt. Ltd Chennai for the purpose of finalizing the estimation of the tender process of spare parts i.e.. "VVVF Drives- Vacon Make"
That Shri Saroj Kanta Behera, the then Manager, Coke Ovens did not make any direct correspondence/communication or verification with the Manufacturing Company M/s Vacon Drives & Control Pvt. Ltd Chennai for ascertaining the genuineness of the Budgetary Offer of the spare parts "VVVF Drives Vacon Make" while preparing/clearing/approving the Purchase Requisition (PR). Shri Saroj Kanta Behera did not even verify the business relationship between M/s Pradeep Trading Co. Rourkela and M/s Vacon Drives & Controls Pvt. Ltd. Chennai during the relevant period i.e. 2012-2013.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 That one Budgetary Offer/Price List vide Ref no. VACON/2012/11/SS dated 11.10.2012 by M/s Pradeep Trading Co. Rourkela and submitted through E-Mail to the E-Mail Address of Shri Saroj Kanta Beher the then Manager, Coke Oven Plant RSP Rourkela and same was treated as Original Budgetary offer/Price list.
That Purchase Requisition (PR No.1202002616) & Proprietary Certificate valued Rs 51.01 Lakh, dated 11.04.2013 for said spare parts was prepared/cleared by Coke Oven Plant of RSP Rourkela (indenting Dept and approved by Tender Screening Committee on the basis of budgetary offer letter Ref. No. VACON/2012/11/SS dated 11.10.2012 as single tender & proprietary basis because of non-availability of other alternate sources.
That Online RQF/Quotation was submitted by M/s Vacon Drives & Controls Pvt. Ltd. Vide Quotation Ref No. VACON/RSP3 valued Rs. 51.01 Lakh (RQF Ref No.340/1202002616/01/00) dated 25.04.2013. In the Quotation, M/s Pradeep Trading Co. Rourkela was nominated for placing purchase order & accepting payments & Shri Pradeep Kumar Das (Prop. of M/s Pradeep Trading Co. Rourkela, Odisha) as contact person which was evaluated and accepted by RSP Rourkela.
That several Tender negotiation meetings were held between M/s Pradeep Trading Co. Rourkela Odisha (as a representative of M/s Vacon Drives & Controls Pvt. Ltd.) & RSP Rourkela from 08.06.2013-09.07.2013. In this process Shri Saroj Kanta Behera along with above said officials of Coke Oven Plant, RS Rourkela caused undue and wrongful loss of Rs. 14.20 Lakh to the RSP, SAIL by not purchasing said spare parts directly from the OEM ie. M/s VACON DRIVES AND CONTROLS PVT. LTD, Chennai as per extant PCP-2009 guidelines of RSP, SAIL.
That duties and responsibilities of Shri Saroj Kanta Behera, Manager, Coke Oven Plant, RSF Rourkela, Odisha includes (i) preparation of detailed estimation of RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 13 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 Purchase Requisition and Proprietar Certificate for Procurement of spare parts on proprietary basis as per extant PCP-2009 guidelines of RS Rourkela (SAIL.).
Shri Saroj Kanta Behera, the then Manager of Coke Oven Plant, RSP Rourkela, Odisha had not acted as per extent PCP-2009 guidelines of the RSP, Rourkela (SAIL) and not ascertained the genuineness of the Budgetary offer/price list of the spare parts "VWWF Drives-Vacon Make collected from M/s Pradeep Trading Co. Rourkela through E-Mail with the Original Equipment Manufacturer(OEM) ie. M/s Vacon Drives & Controls Pvt Ltd. Chennai while preparing the Purchase Requisition (PR) & Proprietary Certificate. He did not even verify the Business relationship between M/s Pradeep Trading Co. Rourkela and M/s Vacon Drives & Controls Pvt. Ltc Chennai during the relevant period ie 2012-2013.
As such by the acts aforesaid Shri Saroj Kanta Behera the then Manager of Coke Oven Plant, RSP Rourkela, Odisha has failed to maintain devotion to his duties acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest to the Company and shown negligence in performance of duty, committed misconduct under rule 5(5) and 5(9 read with clause 4(1)(ii) of SAIL CDA Rules, 1977."
7. The relevant operative part of the report of the IO is reproduced below:
"24. The charges against the CSO are basically that he has failed to maintain proper devotion to duty and has also shown negligence in the performance of his duty, the other allegation being acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Company.
25. Evidence led by the Management reveals that the CSO was an EXPERIENCED assisting officer to the Indenter in the instant case for CO(E) and was therefore responsible for proper scrutiny of the indent RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 14 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 including adherence to the laid down systems & procedures. MW-1, along with MW-2 and MW-5 who held senior positions in hierarchy of the plant has clearly deposed that proper scrutiny, including direct correspondence with the OEM and obtaining a Price List from OEM at the time of raising Indent could have led to discovery of a fair & better price as well as be in compliance of the PCP-09 formulations. The undersigned is inclined to accept this argument of the Prosecution and the principal argument of defence that the representatives of VDCPL was verbally asked to submit budgetary offer in the instant case is simplistic & facile. The IA agrees with MW-2 "that the basic objective of the hierarchical organizational structure in place for processing of the purchase cases/raising of PR's is to weed out chances of errors/omissions at various stages. Each stage of clearance can necessarily adopt scrutiny/screening techniques to identify & root out mistakes committed or correct erroneous Indents". The CSO cannot escape the onerous overall responsibility vested on all officers dealing in Planning activities to ensure strict adherence to established norms & procedures stipulated in PCP-09 guidelines. As such, the allegations against the CSO regarding negligence in performance of duty, are adequately proved through the evidence led by the Management. However, the allegation against the CSO for failure to maintain devotion to duty and acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company is not getting substantiated as the same in not clearly featuring in the evidence led by Management including the exhibits submitted in substantiation. The principal witness for the prosecution MW-4, the investigating CBI officer in the instant case, failed to clearly explain the methodology adapted to arrive at the figure of loss and was evasive to the specific queries in this regard during cross-examination. It shall also be a miscarriage of justice to blame RSP officials for forgery if any committed by M/s PTC as alleged by MW-4 during the proceedings in light of the fact that the signatures of the charged individuals were not analyzed RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 15 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 forensically for authentication to firmly establish the grievous charge. (Emphasis added)
26. Although the CSO pleaded for time-extension to submit the written defence statement the written brief does not bring any additional relevant issues or evidences, other than those brought by him during the course of the enquiry his principal argument being that he was not the indenter in the instant case. His contention therein, that the MM department being the procurement authority found no violation of procedures in the indenting process and the proposal had passed through in the hierarchy & various committees not refuted. However, he has definitely failed to raise/scrutinize the Indent according to the requirements of laid down procedure enumerated in PCP-09 Clause 2.4.1(c) wherein it is stipulated that supplier's price list is to be explicitly sought from the manufacturer only. CSO submitted that previous to this PO earlier two(2) nos. of PO's were placed on this dealer (PTC) as per directive of M/s Vacon the OEM during proceedings. The IA is inclined to accept the arguments that the indenter/Dept recommended placement of order on the OEM and that no incontrovertible proof was submitted by the CBI witness to prove forgery. That the approximate assessable value was known to the NTC members has been clearly evidenced during course of enquiry. The IA finds credence in the reply of MW-7 during cross-examination wherein he states "Since the business model and the policies of private entities are not shared by them, I cannot comment on their pricing policy and declared CENVAT credit impact etc. in the Instant case, the minimum CENVAT credit declared is 8% which makes the minimum assessable value as 65% and maximum 35% towards marketing, sales and distribution charges including profit of the firm.
While the PO and other MW's have through their testimonies apportioned responsibility on CSO for failing to conform to the stipulations in the prevalent PCP-09, a dispassionate and threadbare analysis of the RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 16 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 chronology of events regarding the instant procurement case reveals that the budgetary offer was sourced by the CSO as an experienced planning officer assisting the Indentor and was received in his official mail sarojkanta [email protected] that the Indenter/assisting officers failed to source a price list from the OEM while raising the indent. The budgetory offer sourced was however, in the letterhead of OEM, VACON DRIVES AND CONTROLS LTD., CHENNAI.
that the file underwent due scrutiny of screening committee members(which has a member from Finance) RFQ was sent to the intended OEM, Vacon drives and Controls Ltd. Chennai and an auto generated report "RFQ Code 340/1202002616/01/00 of SAIL-Rourkela Steel Plant dated 17/04/13 was forwarded from e-mall ID of Purchase officer [email protected] to the e- mail ID [email protected]/ of Sudip Saha of M/s VACON) through EPS Chennai to link inviting to submit online quotation. This message also instructed M/s.
Vacon Itd click enter into web
https//procurement.m.etaljunction.com. Then M/s.
Vacon Ltd could log in the site by using user id and password and could respond or regret the said RFQ which was mandatory.
Although the investigation by MW-4 (CBI Investigator) revealed that the User Id and password of EPS allotted to M/s Vacon was passed by Sudip Saha a Vacon employee, to Mr. Pradeep kumar Das of Pradeep Trading Company, the complicity of CSO or any other RSP officials in the aforesaid act is not proven. The Purchase officer representing MM had invited M/s PTC as representative of M/s Vacon based on M/s VACON letter VACON/2013/08/SS dtd.08/06/2013 and thereafter multiple round of negotiations were RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 17 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 carried out by NTC with due approval of competent authorities. As declared in the testimony of MW-4 "The investigation revealed that these letters were delivered by hand to Rourkela but were not issued by M/s Vocon Chennai and signature of Sudip Saha was forged in these letters. "However nothing incriminatory involving the CSO or other RSP officials is alleged in these acts. The NTC members were privy to the approximate assessable value of the items based on the minimum CENVAT credit agreed.
Although M/s PTC had no formal agreements/contracts with M/s VACON, Chennai and was acting only informally as a Channei Partner of M/S VACON as alleged, the Indenting Dept under prevalent norms and practices may not have been privy to this information. The CSO as a junior officer facilitating planning jobs & procedures may justifiably claim ignorance of this fact. In addition to that the PR was raised for procurement of the item from OEM only.
The figure of loss derived by the investigating Officer, CBI has been apparently derived from calculating the price difference between the manufacturer & Dealer Ignoring components like transportation, taxes and duties prevalent in the state, Dealer's Margin, Cost of Capital and other handling charges The corroborative evidence led by the management has failed to establish any explicit violations by the CSO other than an act of omission which is a quintessential requirement to sustain grievous charge of acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company.
27. The IA therefore comes to the conclusion that the charges framed against Sri Saroj Kanta Behera, PL No.201406 (SAIL PL NO. E001602) Sr Mgr, OBBP (E), Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela vide Memorandum No. EMM-2013-656 dated 14.05.2018 issued by ED(Works), Rourkela Steel Plant, i.e. shown negligence in performance of duty, stands ESTABLISHED. In absence of supporting evidence, the major charge that he has failed in maintaining RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 18 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 proper devotion to duty and has acted in a manner prejudicial to the Interest of the company is NOT ESTABLISHED.
8. The relevant portion of the order of the DA is quoted below:
On careful consideration of the facts & circumstances of the case, inquiry report and the reply of Shri Saroj Kunta Behera, it is seen that Shri Saroj Kanta Behera, has shown negligence in performance of duty thereby committed misconduct as per Clause 5(7) read with clause 4(1)(ii) of SAIL, CDA Rules, 1977. I also find that principle of natural justice was adhered during the enquiry proceedings and enough opportunity was given to Shri Behera to defend his case, which he availed.
NOW, THEREFORE, considering all aspects, I impose the major penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage from Rs. 54,690/- to Rs.53,090/- with cumulative effect as a Disciplinary Measure. He will not earn his increment during the punishment period of one year."
9. The relevant portion of the order of the AA is extracted below:
"The appellant has stated that as per the report of the IA although the articles of charges are partially established, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding of the IA and held the view that Articles of Charges were not correctly inquired by the IA. The appellant has stated that the Proprietary item like VVVF Drive has to be purchased from OEM and for that matter, OEM instructed to procure through their authorized dealer which is a common commercial practice and PC2-09 has provision for that eventuality. The proposal has passed through the hierarchy & RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 19 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 various committees and finally got the approval of CA with concurrence of F&A. The appellant further contends that in case of proprietary procurement hardly there is any scope of indenting officer to do any market survey as in the case of Open Tender and the term of proprietor is final as it can only be procured from OEM or through his authorized dealer as has happened in this case. PCP-09 has provided many options at the time of intending and the intending officer has to opt the relevant and suitable one.
The above cited contention have been carefully gone through, although the appellant has charmed that he has followed all possible measure to raise & clear/approve the Purchase Requisition and Proprietary Certificate (PR. No. 1202002616 dated 11.04.2013) for procurement of spare parts "VVVF Drives-Vacon Make", however, the estimate for the satte was prepared based on the scanned copy of Budgetary Offer Price List Ref. No. VACON/2012/11/SS dated 11.10.2012 received from the e-mail ID of M/s Pradeep Trading Co Rourkela, instead of obtaining budgetary offer (supplier's price List rates) along with the applicable discounts directly from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) preparing the estimate, as per PCP-2009.
It is clear from the above that Shri Behera in his appeal has brought out no new material evidence/information that have a bearing on the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. In view of the above, I find no merit in the appeal of Shri Behera and do not intend to interfere with the order dated 4th December 2019 of the Disciplinary Authority. The appeal, therefore stands rejected.
10. It is the specific case of the applicant that the estimated budget proposal was processed by the Executive Director (Works), who is the Administrative Head in the matter. After it RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 20 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 was approved, the proposal was sent to MM (Purchase), department to invite quotation, evaluation of tender by a committee and place the purchase order on the arties whose quotation was accepted. The purchase Department after due compliance of the formalities sought approval of the CEO, the Administrative Head of the Steel Plant and placed the order to M/s PTC. Subsequent orders were also placed on the same party for the same equipment at the same price by the purchase department of RSP. Even though, the applicant was not the indenting officer and had merely helped his senior officers in the matter, the applicant was issued the charge sheet stating therein that he was the indenting officer, which is not correct. From the above, it is clear that the entire action was taken on the approval of the Executive Director (Works)/DA, who is the Administrative Head and CEO/AA of the SAIL on the recommendation of the Committee duly formed and concurrence of the finance wing of the SAIL. At no point of time, either the Committee, financial wing, ED(W) or CEO of the SAIL had pointed out any such deficiency in the procurement process initiated by the applicant.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 21 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 Therefore, the applicant has pointed out that the ED(W) and CEO of SAIL, being parties to the process, ought not to have acted as DA and AA because likelihood of bias is palpable. Based on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court of India, if a purchase or transaction was made with the explicit approval of the Disciplinary Authority (DA), it is generally considered "bad in law" for the same DA to subsequently initiate disciplinary proceedings against a subordinate (dealing assistant) for misconduct regarding the same transaction. This is because, by approving the action, the Disciplinary Authority has already vetted and validated the transaction. A subsequent disciplinary action for "illegality" on the same transaction contradicts the authority's own prior approval, violating the principles of administrative fairness and consistency. It is a well-settled principle of administrative law based on the principles of natural justice, specifically the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua - no one should be a judge in their own cause). An authority who is a witness, a complainant, or a party to an incident cannot act as the Disciplinary Authority (DA) in that same case. If the RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 22 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 Disciplinary Authority is involved in the incident, they must recuse themselves, and the authority next higher in hierarchy should act as the Disciplinary Authority.
11. We find that IO in its report held that the allegation of failure in maintaining proper devotion to duty thereby acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Company is not established, however, the negligence in performance of duty stands established. The DA in its order imposed the punishment by holding that the applicant shown negligence in performance of his duty and thereby committed misconduct. Ld Counsel for the applicant in order to show that the negligence cannot come within the purview of misconduct, in the facts and circumstances of the matter, has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Orissa in the case of Malaya Ranjan Dash (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs J.Ahmed, 1979(2) SCC 286 and other similar cases, held that an act of 'negligence', errors of judgment or RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 23 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 innocent mistake 'does not constitute misconduct', relevant portion of the said decision is placed below:
"The term 'misconduct' implies a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment resulting in doing of negligent act. 'Misconduct' means, misconduct arising from ill motive. An act of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, does not constitute 'misconduct'.
In the case of J. Ahmed (supra), it is held as follows:
"10. It would be appropriate at this stage to ascertain what generally constitutes misconduct, especially in the context of disciplinary proceedings entailing penalty.
11. Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected of a member of the service. It would follow that conduct which is blameworthy for the government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct (see Pierce v. Foster : 17 QB 536, 542). A disregard of an essential condition of the contract of service may constitute misconduct [see Laws Vs. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers : (1959) 1 WLR 698)]. This view was adopted in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari Vs. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagpur : 61 Bom LR 1596 and Satubha K. Vaghela Vs. Moosa Raza : 10 Guj LR 23. The High Court has noted the definition of misconduct in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary which runs as under:
"Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct."
In industrial jurisprudence amongst others, habitual or gross negligence constitute misconduct but in Utkal Machinery Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Miss Shanti Patnaik : AIR 1966 SC 1051 in the absence of standing orders governing the employee's undertaking, unsatisfactory work was treated as misconduct in the context of discharge being assailed as punitive. In S. Govinda Menon Vs. Union of India : AIR 1967 SC 1274, the RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 24 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 manner in which a member of the service discharged his quasi judicial function disclosing abuse of power was treated as constituting misconduct for initiating disciplinary proceedings. A single act of omission or error of judgment would ordinarily not constitute misconduct though if such error or omission results in serious or atrocious consequences, the same may amount to misconduct as was held by this Court in P.H. Kalyani Vs. Air France, Calcutta : AIR 1963 SC 1756, wherein it was found that the two mistakes committed by the employee while checking the load-sheets and balance charts would involve possible accident to the aircraft and possible loss of human life and, therefore, the negligence in work in the context of serious consequences was treated as misconduct. It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso facto constitute misconduct. There may be negligence in performance of duty and a lapse in performance of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation may be negligence in discharge of duty but would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such as to be irreparable or the resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high. An error can be indicative of negligence and the degree of culpability may indicate the grossness of the negligence. Carelessness can often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or malevolence. Leaving aside the classic example of the sentry who sleeps at his post and allows the enemy to slip through, there are other more familiar instances of which a railway cabinman signals in a train on the same track where there is a stationery train causing head-on collision; a nurse giving intravenous injection which ought to be given intramuscular causing instantaneous death; a pilot overlooking an instrument showing snag in engine and the aircraft crashes causing heavy loss of life. Misplaced sympathy can be a great evil (see Navinchandra Shakerchand Shah Vs. Manager, Ahmedabad Co-op. Department Stores Ltd. : (1978) 19 Guj LR 108, 120). But in any case, failure to attain the highest standard of efficiency in performance of duty permitting an inference of negligence would not constitute misconduct nor for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules as would indicate lack of devotion to duty."
In the case of Insp. Prem Chand (supra), it is held as follows:
RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 25 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 "10. In State of Punjab v. Ram Singh, ExConstable:
(1992) 4 SCC 54, it was stated: (SCC pp. 57-58, para
5) "5. Misconduct has been defined in Black‟s Law Dictionary, 6th Edn. at p. 999, thus:
'A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior; its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness.' Misconduct in office has been defined as:
'Any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. Term embraces acts which the office- holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act.'
11. In R Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, 3rd Edn., at p. 3027, the term "misconduct" has been defined as under:
'The term 'misconduct' implies a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment.
* * * Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude.
The word 'misconduct' is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject- matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being construed. 'Misconduct' literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct."
(See also Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. T.K. Raju : (2006) 3 SCC 143)
12. It is not in dispute that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant in terms of the provisions of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. It was, therefore, necessary for the RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 26 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 disciplinary authority to arrive at a finding of fact that the appellant was guilty of an unlawful behaviour in relation to discharge of his duties in service, which was willful in character. No such finding was arrived at. An error of judgment, as noticed hereinbefore, per se is not a misconduct. A negligence simpliciter also would not be a misconduct. In Union of India Vs. J. Ahmed :
(1979) 2 SCC 286 whereupon Mr. Sharan himself has placed reliance, this Court held so stating: (SCC pp.
292-93, para 11) "11. Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected of a member of the service. It would follow that conduct which is blameworthy for the government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct (see Pierce Vs. Foster : (1886) 17 QBD 536). A disregard of an essential condition of the contract of service may constitute misconduct [see Laws Vs. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) : (1959) 1 WLR 698]. This view was adopted in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari Vs. Divisional Supdt., Central Rly., Nagpur Division, Nagpur : (1959) 61 Bom LR 1596 and Satubha K. Vaghela Vs. Moosa Raza : 10 Guj LR 23. The High Court has noted the definition of misconduct in Stroud‟s Judicial Dictionary which runs as under:
„Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct'." (emphasis supplied) In the case of Abhay Jain (supra), it is held as follows:
"71. This Court in Krishna Prasad Verma Vs. State of Bihar : (2019) 10 SCC 640, while setting aside the High Court‟s order, quashed the charges against the officer therein and granted him consequential benefits while holding that: (SCC pp. 643, 646 & 648, paras 4, 11 &
16) "4. No doubt, there has to be zero tolerance for corruption and if there are allegations of corruption, misconduct or of acts unbecoming RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 27 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 of a judicial officer, these must be dealt with strictly. However, if wrong orders are passed, that should not lead to disciplinary action unless there is evidence that the wrong orders have been passed for extraneous reasons and not because of the reasons on the file.
* * *
11. The main ground to hold the appellant guilty of the first charge is that the appellant did not take notice of the orders of the High Court whereby the High Court had rejected the bail application of one of the accused vide order dated 26.11.2001. It would be pertinent to mention that the High Court itself observed that after framing of charges, if the non-official witnesses are not examined, the prayer for bail could be removed, but after moving the lower court first. The officer may have been guilty of negligence in the sense that he did not carefully go through the case and file and did not take notice of the order of the High Court which was on his file. This negligence cannot be treated to be misconduct. It would be pertinent to mention that the enquiry officer has not found that there was any extraneous reason for granting bail.
The enquiry officer virtually sat as a court of appeal picking holes in the order granting bail.
* * *
16. We would, however, like to make it clear that we are in no manner indicating that if a judicial officer passes a wrong order, then no action is to be taken. In case a judicial officer passes orders which are against settled legal norms but there is no allegation of any extraneous influences leading to the passing of such orders then the appropriate action which the High Court should take is to record such material on the administrative side and place it on the service record of the judicial officer concerned. These matters can be taken into consideration while considering career progression of the judicial officer concerned. Once note of the wrong order is taken and they form part of the service record these can be RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 28 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 taken into consideration to deny selection grade, promotion, etc. and in case there is a continuous flow of wrong or illegal orders then the proper action would be to compulsorily retire the judicial officer, in accordance with the Rules. We again reiterate that unless there are clear-cut allegations of misconduct, extraneous influences, gratification of any kind, etc., disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated merely on the basis that a wrong order has been passed by the judicial officer or merely on the ground that the judicial order is incorrect."
(emphasis supplied)
* * *
73. In light of the above judicial pronouncements, we hold that the appellant may have been guilty of negligence in the sense that he did not carefully go through the case file and did not take notice of the order of the High Court which was on his file. This negligence cannot be treated to be misconduct. Moreover, the enquiry officer virtually sat as a court of appeal picking holes in the order granting bail, even when he could not find any extraneous reason for the grant of the bail order. Notably, in the present case, there was not a string of continuous illegal orders that have been alleged to be passed for extraneous considerations. The present case revolves only around a single bail order, and that too was passed with competent jurisdiction. As has been rightly held by this Court in Sadhna Chaudhary : (2020) 11 SCC 760, mere suspicion cannot constitute "misconduct". Any "probability" of misconduct needs to be supported with oral or documentary material, and this requirement has not been fulfilled in the present case. These observations assume importance in light of the specific fact that there was no allegation of illegal gratification against the present appellant. As has been rightly held by this Court, such relieforiented judicial approaches cannot by themselves be grounds to cast aspersions on the honesty and integrity of an officer."
In the case of A.L. Kalra (supra), it is held as follows:-
"22. Rule 4 bears the heading „General‟. Rule 5 bears the heading „Misconduct‟. The draftsmen of the 1975 Rules made a clear distinction about what would constitute misconduct. A general expectation of a certain RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 29 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 decent behaviour in respect of employees keeping in view Corporation culture may be a moral or ethical expectation. Failure to keep to such high standard of moral, ethical or decorous behaviour befitting an officer of the company by itself cannot constitute misconduct unless the specific conduct falls in any of the enumerated misconduct in Rule 5. Any attempt to telescope Rule 4 into Rule 5 must be looked upon with apprehension because Rule 4 is vague and of a general nature and what is unbecoming of a public servant may vary with individuals and expose employees to vagaries of subjective evaluation. What in a given context would constitute conduct unbecoming of a public servant to be treated as misconduct would expose a grey area not amenable to objective evaluation. Where misconduct when proved entails penal consequences, it is obligatory on the employer to specify and if necessary define it with precision and accuracy so that any ex post facto interpretation of some incident may not be camouflaged as misconduct. It is not necessary to dilate on this point in view of a recent decision of this Court in Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut : (1984) 1 SCC 1 where this Court held that "everything which is required to be prescribed has to be prescribed with precision and no argument can be entertained that something not prescribed can yet be taken into account as varying what is prescribed. In short, it cannot be left to the vagaries of management to say ex post facto that some acts of omission or commission nowhere found to be enumerated in the relevant standing order is nonetheless a misconduct not strictly falling within the enumerated misconduct in the relevant standing order but yet a misconduct for the purpose of imposing a penalty". Rule 4 styled as „General‟ specifies a norm of behaviour but does not specify that its violation will constitute misconduct. In Rule 5, it is nowhere stated that anything violative of Rule 4 would be per se a misconduct in any of the sub- clauses of Rule 5 which specifies misconduct. It would therefore appear that even if the facts alleged in two heads of charges are accepted as wholly proved, yet that would not constitute misconduct as prescribed in Rule 5 and no penalty can be imposed for such conduct. It may as well be mentioned that Rule 25 which prescribes penalties specifically provides that any of the penalties therein mentioned can be imposed on an employee for misconduct committed by him. Rule 4 does not specify a misconduct."
RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 30 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 In the case of Vijay Singh (supra), it is held as follows:-
"14. The issue involved herein is required to be examined from another angle also. Holding departmental proceedings and recording a finding of guilt against any delinquent and imposing the punishment for the same is a quasi-judicial function and not administrative one. (Vide Bachhittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab : AIR 1963 SC 395, Union of India Vs. H.C. Goel : AIR 1964 SC 364, Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs. State of U.P : (2010) 10 SCC 539 and Coal India Ltd. Vs. Ananta Saha : (2011) 5 SCC 142) * * *
20. Unfortunately, a too trivial matter had been dragged disproportionately which has caused so much problem to the appellant. There is nothing on record to show as to whether the alleged delinquency would fall within the ambit of misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings could be initiated. It is settled legal proposition that (sic it cannot be left to) the vagaries of the employer to say ex post facto that some acts of omission or commission nowhere found to be enumerated in the relevant rules is nonetheless a misconduct."
* * * In the case of State of Bihar and Anr. -Vs.- P.P. Sharma, IAS and Anr. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, it is held that the administrative action must be said to be done in good faith, if it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not. An act done honestly is deemed to have been done in good faith. An administrative authority must, therefore, act in a bona fide manner and should never act for an improper motive or ulterior purposes or contrary to the requirements of the statute, or the basis of the circumstances contemplated by law, or improperly exercised discretion to achieve some ulterior purpose.
Conclusion:
18. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the humble view that the findings of the Inquiring Authority that charges of gross misconduct, dereliction of duty and administrative indiscipline are well established against the petitioner, are perverse and untenable in the eyes of law and therefore, the same are hereby set aside. The petitioner thus stands exonerated of all the charges levelled against him. The impugned notification no.2100 dated 21st December 2022 of RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 31 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 this Court under Annexure-22 and the consequential office order no.6950 dated 16th February 2023 of the Govt. of Odisha, Home Department under Annexure-23, stands quashed.
Consequently, the opposite parties nos.1 and 2 are directed to extend all the service benefits attached to the post of a District Judge (Super Time Scale) w.e.f. 21st December, 2022 to the petitioner forthwith. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed."
12. In the case in hand, there is no such finding in t he report of the IO that that 'negligence' shown to have been committed by the applicant was not in good faith or for any dishonest purpose.
The orders of the DA as well as AA are also completely silent that the 'negligence'.
13. Similarly, we find that the DA imposed the punishment merely stating that "on careful consideration of the facts & circumstances of the case, inquiry report and the reply of Shri Saroj Kunta Behera" and the AA also did the same thing without making any discussion and deliberation of the allegation made against the applicant, finding of the IO, and without meeting/answering the reply submitted by the applicant to the report of the IO as also in appeal; which in our considered view do not meet the ends of justice rather is in violation of principles of natural justice. The above view of ours is also fortified by the RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 32 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the case of Kems Services Private Limited vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. [2014 (1) PLJR 622] wherein while emphasizing the significant importance of assigning the reason while passing the impugned order has observed as follows:
"11. Natural justice is a word of very wide connotation. It cannot be put in any straight jacket formula. Its applicability shall depend on facts of each case. It cannot mean only fulfillment of the formality for giving of a show cause notice and acceptance of a reply. The final order must display complete application of mind to the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice, the defence taken in reply, followed by at least a brief analysis of the defence supported by reasons why it was not acceptable. To hold that the cause shown can be cursorily rejected in one line by saying that it was not satisfactory or acceptable in our opinion shall be vesting completely arbitrary and uncanalised powers in the authority. In a given situation if the authority concerned finds the cause shown to be difficult to deal and reject, it shall be very convenient for him not to discuss the matter and reject it by simply stating that it was not acceptable. The giving of reasons in such a situation is an absolute imperative and a facet of natural justice. Reasons have been held to be the heart and soul of an order giving insight to the mind of the maker of the order, and that he considered all relevant aspect and eschewed irrelevant aspects."
14. In the aforesaid premises, the orders of DA and AA can safely be held to be in violation of the principles of natural justice and law quoted above.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 33 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021
15. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. P Gunasekaran, (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court delineated the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings:
"13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in
case the same has been conducted in
accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
16. We have examined the matter keeping in mind the decision relied on by the Respondents. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, since imposition of punishment on the applicant is found to be illegal and arbitrary having been made in violation of RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:50:13 +05'30' 34 O.A.No. 260/00172 of 2021 the law, the impugned orders dated 04.12.2019 and 31.07.2020 are hereby quashed. The Respondents are directed to issue the consequential order restoring the pay of the applicant and paying him the arrears upon restoration within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
17. In the result this OA stands allowed to the extent stated above. Costs made easy.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.01.20
16:50:13 +05'30'