AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who was holding the post of Deputy Chief Material Manager in Grade E -5 in the Purchase Department of Bokaro Steel Plant was charge -sheeted and was proceeded depart - mentally for the following charges quoted hereinbelow : - - "It has been reported that Sri B.P. Sinha while processing the case for procurement of G.I. Pipes issued LTE to M/s Steel Man and had thus committed the following act of commission and omission : Sri B.P. Sinha issued inquiry to M/s Steel Man for supply of G.I. Pipes without approved from GM (MMJ/ED (MM) as the party is not registered with BSL for G.I. Pipes. The party is registered with BSL for supply of some other items. By the aforesaid acts of omission and commission, Sri B.P. Sinha has contravened clause Nos. 4.0(i)(ii) and 5.0(5) of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977.
(2.) THE detail of the charges was that an MPR dated 13.10.1997 was raised for supply of G.I. Pipes at an estimated cost of Rs. 1,94,000.00 . For procurement of the materials. Limited Tender Enquiry dated 4.2.1998 was issued to seven firms including M/s. Steel Man as per the recommendation of the Indenting Department. All the seven firms submitted their quotation including M/s. Steel Man which emerged as the 1 -1 tenderer. It was said that M/s, Steel Man was registered with the Bokaro Steel Plant for the items Rubber Bush, Low Pressure Water Hose, Fasteners and Screws and GM Valves only and the said firm was not registered for G.I. Pipes. It is said that the petitioner being the Purchase Officer, wrongly issued Limited Tender Enquiry (LTE) to the firm M/s. Steel Man for supply of G.I. Pipes though the said firm was not registered for the G.I. Pipes. It was further said that the LTE was issued to the said firm M/s. Steel Man, without approval of the competent authority and thereby the petitioner contravened clause Nos. 4.0 (i) and (ii) and 5.0 (5) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977. The petitioner submitted his reply in his defence stating, inter alto, that the LTE was issued to M/s. Steel Man on recommendation of the Indenting Officer of the Indenting Department, in the prescribed format and the same was issued after obtaining approval of the competent authority i.e. the acting Chief Material Manager. The price offered and quoted by M/s. Steel Man was Rs. 1,81,351/ - against the estimated cost of Rs. 1,94,000.00 and the said firm emerged as lowest bidder amongst the seven firms who had submitted quotations. It was further stated that M/s. Steel Man had supplied G.I. Pipes in the past also, though the said firm was not registered, as such, for supply of G.I. Pipes. Further that since the firm, M/s. Steel Man was a registered firm with the Bokaro Steel Plant for supply of other items so the firm was not new to the Bokaro Steel Limited and, therefore, the approval of the Head of the Department was not taken. There was no malafide intention on the part of the petitioner because the LTE was issued to seven firms on the basis of the recommendation of the Indenting Officer of the Indenting Department.
(3.) FROM the Enquiry Report, it appears that the Enquiry Officer on assessment of the evidence adduced in the proceeding found the following facts : - - "1. Concept of itemwise registration before March 2000 was not there in practice in Purchase Department. 2. There was no practice of having an itemwise list of Venders with concerned Purchase Officer. 3. That time the concept of a new firm was the firm who never had any business with BSL but being considered for first time for issue of Purchase Enquiry. 4. M/s. The Steel Man as has business in the past with BSL, cannot be considered as a new firm. 5. Approval of HoD needed only in the case of new firm regarding issue of LTE. 6. Last supplier is considered the issue of Enquiry if there was no quality complaint of delivery failure and had the proven capacity and resource. 7. In this case Indenter had recommended the names of venders including the last supplier for issue of enquiry. ;