Disciplinary proceedings initiated post-CBI investigation adhered to due process, and courts cannot re-evaluate evidence unless findings are perverse; the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to demonstrate prejudice from procedural non-compliance.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

FACTUAL MATRIX

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the quashing of the impugned disciplinary proceedings initiated against him which culminated into order dated 6th July 2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority by way of which the Petitioner was dismissed from the services of the Respondent No.1; and to declare that the withholdings and adjustment of leave encashment and arrears of revised salary is illegal and arbitrary.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are that the Petitioner joined the Cement Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the `CCI') as a Joint Senior Manager in the year 1991. In February 1996, a proposal was mooted for hiring and/or taking on lease heavy earth moving equipments from the contractors for the purpose of lifting and transportation of lime stones at different CCI units.

3. A written proposal dated 8th February 1996 was prepared by the Geology and Mining Department of CCI for taking administrative approval for hiring the required numbers of heavy earth moving equipments from the contractors. The said proposal traveled from Mining Department to the Material Management Department and was approved by the then Chairman Managing Director (hereinafter referred to as `CMD'). An estimate prepared by the Geology and Mining Department containing the estimated value of the contract was annexed with the proposal but these estimates were not scrutinized or vetted by the Finance department of CCI.

4. An exercise of cost estimates was undertaken by the Mining Department and the contract value of all the units was estimated @ Rs.368.94 lacs as per the note dated 20th February 1996, as against estimated contract value ranging between Rs.412/- to Rs.477/- lacs as per the proposal dated 8th February 1996. The note dated 20th February 1996 was not referred anywhere in the entire process of obtaining administrative approval of the proposal dated 8th February 1996.

5. On the recommendations of Mr. BB Prasad, Senior Manager (Mining), Mr. J.K. Kulshreshtra Senior Manager (G&M), Mr. Yash Pal, General Manager (G&M), Mr. A.S. Prasad Senior Manager (Finance) & Mr. B Sahay, Director (Personnel & Finance), the administrative approval was given by the CMD, CCI to above proposal for hiring the heavy earth moving equipments from outside sources. The above proposal was also cleared by Board of Directors, CCI in its meeting held on 27th February 1996.

6. Pursuant to the administrative approval of the above proposal by CMD and Board of Directors of CCI, notice inviting tenders were issued for eight units. In response, 8 offers were received by CCI and after going through the techno-commercial bids of the tenderers, the Tender Committee recommended the price bids of six contractors.

7. Since the total value of the contract was more than Rs.2.50 crores, the said recommendations of the Tender Committee were placed before the Committee of Directors headed by the CMD. The said recommendation was duly approved by the Committee of Directors, clearing the way for opening the price bids of the six contractors named in the recommendations of the Tender Committee.

8. On 1st July 1996, the Petitioner who joined as incharge of Materials Management Department was inducted as member of the Tender Committee for the purpose of evaluating the price bids. As per the guidelines laid down by CCI regarding procedure for tendering and processi