- (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.3.2013 , whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, quashing the punishment of reduction of the scale in the lower grade.
(2.) The respondent was an employee of the appellant-Steel Authority of India Limited and working in the post of Senior Executive(Stores) in the Materials Management Division. He was transferred on 30.10.1996 and joined in the same on 7.11.1996. The respondent while working in B.F. (Sub-Stores) was charge-sheeted for the acts of omission and commission which contravened clause 4.0(1)(ii) and 5.0 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977. The charges levelled against the respondent is that the respondent while dealing the case of M/s Quality Rubber Industries, BIADA, who supplied substandard Air Hose against the P.O. No.80053 dated 20.11.1995 and P.O.No.P79770, had not given notices in time, thereby no recovery was made from the party, which termed as loss to the Company. It was also alleged that the rejected material remained in the Stores occupying valuable space of the Stores, as the party did not take back the material. The enquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer held that the second charge is proved against the respondent. Based on the findings of the Inquiry Officer, by order dated 3.1.2002 the disciplinary authority imposed punishment by order dated 3.1.2002 reducing the respondent to the post of Executive(E1) in the scale of Rs. 10,705-300-16,750/-. The respondent thereafter preferred an appeal on 18.1.2002, which was rejected on 25.2.2002.
(3.) Challenging the order of punishment imposed, the respondent, has filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5621 of 2002. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge held that no no attempt has been made by the Inquiry Officer or disciplinary authority to ascertain the truthfulness of the stand taken by the respondent and the stand of the respondent that he has taken prompt action was not properly considered by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The learned Single Judge further held that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the relevant materials and arrived at a wrong conclusion and passed the order imposing penalty dated 3.1.2002 and the appellate authority has also ignored this aspect of the matter and erroneously rejected the appeal. Referring to the judgments of Narinder Mohanarya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 713 and Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and ors., reported in (1987)4 SCC 611 , the learned Single Judge held that the judicial review is not directed against the decision but is directed against the decision making process. The learned Single Judge took the view that the respondent at the first instance had issued pre-emptory notices to the supplier and that nothing has been brought on record by the department that the respondent alone can be held responsible for taking no further action in the matter. The learned Single Judge further held that it may be a mistake on the part of the respondent and for that penalty which has been imposed on the respondent could not have been imposed by any reasonable employer. On this finding, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 3.1.2002 and also the order of the appellate authority dated 25.2.2002.;