The Appellant cannot be penalized for acts for which he was not solely responsible, and the involvement of external bodies in disciplinary proceedings does not necessarily prejudice the appellant.

D. Biswas, J.

1. The Appellant joined the services of Bongaigaon Refinery Limited in the year 1979 and, in course of time, in the year 1996 was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager (POL-Marketing). A departmental proceeding was initiated against him which led to imposition of the penalty of reduction in rank under Rule 30(b)(i) of the Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1983, for short "the Rules". The Appellant challenged the action of the disciplinary authority in Writ Petition (C) No. 6354/2002. The writ petition was dismissed by the judgment dated January 27, 2005. Aggrieved thereby, he has approached this Court controverting the legality and propriety of the judgment on various grounds set-forth in the Memo of Appeal.

2. We have heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Appellant and also Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 and 2.

3. Let us at this stage clear the facts. The Appellant joined the services under the Respondent authority in the year 1979 and eventually rose to the position of Deputy General Manager (POL-Marketing) in the year 1996. The Refinery launched a programme for setting up of Jubilee Retail Outlets for marketing its finished products. The Appellant was co-opted as a member of different committees constituted to finalize the projects. Accordingly, retail outlets were established on recommendations of the committees with clearance from the vigilance. In this case, we are concerned with the out-let established at Jorabat.

4. The Appellant was served with a Memorandum of Charges dated 15.12.2001 as detailed below:

Article of Charge No. 1

Sri G.C. Sarma dishonestly selected and recommended purchase of land at Jorabat on the ground of economic viability. As a Member in the price negotiating committee, he failed to assess the reasonable price of the land inasmuch as he himself intimated the price of 7 acres of land at Rs. 30 Lakhs in his preliminary report.

Article of Charge No. 2

Sri G.C. Sarma appointed the Valuer Sri I. Sharma for land valuation violating the due process of tendering and that the fictitious price fixed by the Valuer at Rs. 25/- per sq.ft. was accepted.

Article of Charge No. 3

Sri I. Sharma who floated the firm M/s ESS Pvt. Ltd. was engaged without process of tendering for determination of soil and rock strata as recommended by Sri G.C. Sarma. The report submitted by Sri I. Sharma was fictitious and misconceived as the land being hilly, rocky and undeveloped was recommended to be suitable for the outlet. Sri G.C. Sarma in connivance with Sri I. Sharma thereby dishonestly recommended the land as suitable.

5. A retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed as the Inquiry Officer who, on completion of the departmental proceedings, submitted his report holding that the charges drawn against the Appellant have been proved. The disciplinary authority by the communication dated 9.8.2002 proposed to impose the penalty of reduction in rank indicating therein that the penalty has been proposed with approval of the Central Vigilance Commission. The Appellant in his representation dated 23.8.2002 assailed the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the penalty proposed at the instance of the Central Vigilance Commission as perverse and, therefore, not sustainable. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority by the impugned order dated 20.9.2002 imposed the penalty reducing the Appellant from his Grade of Deputy General Manager to Grade F, Chief Manager in a lower pay scale of Rs. 19,000/- to Rs. 24,570/- for a period of five years or till he was declared fit by the competent authority for restoration of the rank and grade from where demoted. The annual increments during the period of penalty were also withheld.

6. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the decision of disciplinary authority, preferred an appeal as provided