IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that disciplinary actions must be based on clear evidence of misconduct, and that responsibility for contract compliance lies with designated authorities, not subordinate officers without enforcement powers.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

ROHIT B.DEO, J. - Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent, heard finally.

3. The petitioner is assailing the order dtd. 31/1/2019, passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (Disciplinary Authority) imposing punishment of reduction to lower scale in the time scale for six months with cumulative effect. The Disciplinary Authority found that the petitioner is partially responsible for not initiating action against the successful bidder - Contractor, who did not deposit the performance security and additional performance security. The petitioner was served with the said order while he was posted at the Western Coalfields Limited (WCL) and he preferred appeal provided under the Coal India Limited Executives (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1978, which the sub-committee of the CIL Board (Appellate Authority) allowed partially vide order dtd. 17/6/2020 by reducing the punishment to "censure", which order is also impugned herein.

4. We may note the factual backdrop of the disciplinary proceedings from which the orders impugned emanate.

a) The petitioner is a permanent resident of Nagpur and, as on the date of the institution of the petition, was working as Chief Manager (Mining), Nagpur Area of WCL.

b) While the petitioner was posted as Project Officer, Hingula Opencast Mine of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL) located in the Sambalpur district of State of Odisha, the Contract Management Cell (CMC) of MCL floated an E-tender notice for "Hiring of Pay Loaders for Mechanical Transfer of Coal into Road Sale Trucks at Pit-Head Stock of Hingula OCP (the subject work).

c) The terms and conditions of the tender document inter alia envisaged furnishing of performance security and additional performance security within a stipulated period. In the context of the issue which we are required to address, elaborate reference to the terms and conditions of the subject work is not necessary.

d) The work order was issued to the Contractor on 31/12/2015. The Contractor was directed to start the work immediately and was advised to deposit the securities as contractually mandated.

e) The Contractor sought the permission of the General Manager for deployment of pay loaders vide letter dtd. 31/12/2015. The site was handed over to the Contractor on 1/1/2016. On 16/2/2016, the Staff Officer (Mining) advised the Contractor to deposit the securities and enter into formal agreement with the area authority. On 4/3/2016, acting on representation of the Contractor, the Staff Officer (Mining) initiated note which was placed before the General Manager (CMC) MCL. The note was returned back with the endorsement of the GM, (CMC), MCL "kindly take action as per NIT".

f) The Staff Officer (Mining) then addressed communication dtd. 7/4/2016 asking the Contractor to deposit the securities in accordance with the contractual conditions. The petitioner contends, that despite the advise of the competent authority that the NIT conditions be looked into, the Staff Officer (Mining) extended the time to deposit the securities. Petitioner further avers that the copies of the correspondence were, as is the routine, marked to the General Manager and the CMC.

g) The Staff Officer (Mining) then addressed letter dtd. 18/5/2016 calling upon the Contractor to deposit the securities and enter into the formal agreement, without any further delay. Copy of the said letter was also marked to the GM, Hingola Area and the CMC.

h) The petitioner, who was the Project Officer, Hingola OCP was transferred to the Kaniha Area as Chief Manager (Mining) on 4/6/2016 and he handed over the charge on 12/6/2016.

i) On 29/7/2016, the Engineer-in-Charge/General Manager, Hingola Area conveyed to the Contractor that the securities be deposited at the earliest to avoid further complications. On 2/9/2016, the CMD of MCL issued office order-cum-advisory inviting the attention of the concerned authorities to the execution of the contract works