Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The revisionist was posted as Director General, RDSO and he ordered to maintain only one list of suppliers for HDGC contact wire. The complaint alleges that due to this decision of the revisionist, undue advantage was gained by M/s Chandra Metals as it was not required to be enlisted first as Part-B supplier on restoration of firms status for supply against imported raw material.

8. After investigation, the CBI had submitted a charge-sheet dated 31.12.2021 against 13 persons (including some companies), including the revisionist. It states that M/s Chandra Metals Limited had wrongly obtained approval from RDSO by misrepresenting the facts and submitting false documents to the effect that M/s MMD Europa, Italy and M/s Kentucky Copper, USA are manufacturers of CCC wire rods with Southwire Technology. M/s Chandra Metals had been delisted for one year for this misconduct. M/s Chandra Metals had submitted an appeal against the order of delisting for one year, but the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority - ADG RDSO, on the ground that the delisting is correct as the vendor list is for HDGC contact wire and approval is given by RDSO for the end product and not on the basis of raw material utilized for manufacturing the same.

9. On 07.04.2014 M/s Chandra Metals wrote a letter to the Director General, RDSO (which position was held by the revisionist at the relevant point of time) for its reinstatement for supply of HDGC contact wire drawn out of indigenous raw material. The appellant marked the said letter to TI Directorate of RDSO.

10. On 17/18.04.2014, the then Member Electrical, Railway Board along with other officers of Railway Board visited RDSO. Thereafter, M/s Chandra Metals sent another letter dated 26.04.2014 to DG, RDSO for its reinstatement as approved vendor for supply of HDGC contact wire through indigenous source. The revisionist handed over this letter to Sri J.N. Lal, Senior ED TI RDSO directing him to put up a note regarding the letter in light of the discussion held with the Member, Electrical and other officials of Railway Board. Sri Lal put up a note for separating the vendors list as per source of the raw material i.e. indigenous and imported. Sri J.N. Lal, Senior ED TI sent a letter dated 23.05.2014, with the approval of the revisionist, to the Railway Board for changes in the vendor directory on the basis of raw material. The Railway Board sent a letter dated 01.07.2014 to the DG, RDSO stating that he was the competent authority to take a decision in the matter of deviation from directives. Thereafter, another note was put up for reinstatement of M/s Chandra Metals and the revisionist passed an order dated 04.07.2014 on the note-sheet seeking certain clarifications regarding the past performance of M/s Chandra Metals. After obtaining clarifications from TI Directorate, the revisionist passed an order dated 13.08.2014 approving the reinstatement of M/s Chandra Metals as Part-I source since the date of approval of prototype test and ordered to obtain approval from Member, Electrical, Railway Board. The Railway Board again conveyed that further action as deemed fit may be taken by the RDSO in light of the clarification issued by the Boards letter dated 01.07.2014. Thereafter, the ED TI issued a letter dated 22.09.2014 under directions of the revisionist restoring M/s Chandra Metals in the approved vendor list for indigenous sources.

14. The respondent-CBI has filed a counter affidavit opposing the revision stating that the revisionist had wrongfully reinstated M/s Chandra Metals enabling it to make supplies to CORE thereby gaining undue advantage and the revisionist is liable to be prosecuted for the alleged offences.

15. The revisionist has filed a rejoinder affidavit refuting the averments made in the counter affidavit.

16. Assailing the validity of the impugned order, Sri. Satyendra Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the only allegation against the revisionist is of having curtailed the period of delisting of the firm M/s Chandra Metals by four months. M/s Chandra Metals had made supplies to CORE and not to RDSO. The RDSO was not instrumental in either issuing the supply order or checking the quality/quantity of the material supplied or making/approving payments to the firms for the supplies made to CORE. The revisionist had curtailed the period of delisting of the firm M/s Chandra Metals in furtherance of the request made by General Manager, CORE through his letter dated 19.01.2014, whereas the revisionist got posted as DG RDSO on 28.03.2014, much after the request made by the General Manager, CORE for relisting M/s Chandra Metals. The revisionist had put up the request before the Railway Board and the Railway Board had ordered that the revisionist was competent to take a decision in this regard and accordingly the revisionist took the decision. The revisionist had retired after attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2017 and no disciplinary action has been taken against him alleging that the revisionist has committed any error or illegality in taking the aforesaid decision in performance of his official duties. Therefore, the passing of the aforesaid order by the revisionist in performance of his official duties does not make out commission of any offence and the revisionist is not liable to be prosecuted for passing the aforesaid order in performance of his official duties. He has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat: (2019) 16 SCC 547, Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani v. State of Gujarat: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 441, Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of M.P.: (2022) 16 SCC 166 and C. Surendranath v. State of Kerala: 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 210.

23. Thus it is clear that while considering an application for discharge the court has to see whether a case of trial of the accused is made out from the material collected by the prosecution during investigation. The only allegation against the applicant is of having ordered reinstatement of M/s Chandra Metals in the list of suppliers and of having curtailed the period of delisting of the firm M/s Chandra Metals by four months. M/s Chandra Metals had made supplies to CORE and not to RDSO. RDSO was not instrumental in either issuing the supply orders or checking the quality/quantity of the material supplied or making/approving payments to the firms for the supplies made to CORE. The revisionist had curtailed the period of delisting of the firm M/s Chandra Metals in furtherance of the request made by General Manager, CORE through his letter dated 19.01.2014, whereas the revisionist got posted as DG RDSO on 28.03.2014, i.e., much after the request made by the General Manager, CORE for relisting M/s Chandra Metals. The revisionist had put up the request before the Railway Board and the Railway Board had ordered that the revisionist was competent to take a decision in this regard and accordingly the revisionist took the decision.