JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, the learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. M.M. Kataki, the learned advocate for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. A.M. Dutta, learned advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3. None appears on call for the Union of India although the name of the conducting CGC is reflected in the cause list.

2. It has been submitted that the petitioner had superannuated during the pendency of disciplinary proceeding and, as such, the matter be heard out of turn. Hence, at the instance of the learned senior counsel appearing for both sides, the matter was heard at the admission stage by issuing rule returnable forthwith.

3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The case projected by the petitioner is that at the relevant time, he was serving at Bokajan Cement Factory of Cement Corporation of India (respondent No. 1) as its General Manager (Co-ordination & Business Department) and Addl. General Manager (Marketing). He was served with a show cause notice dated 19.09.2011 in connection with Proceeding No. 156, alleging that while working as General Manager at Bokajan Cement Factory, he had issued invoices to the transporters for the cement carried by them for carriage to Imphal. The petitioner was charged that although the cement was sold to the transporters at market rate, but no penalty was imposed under Clauses 5.3 and 5.4 of the Special Terms and Conditions of the tender. It was projected that transporters were engaged for transporting 1309.10 MT, 626.00 MT and 3255.40 MT quantity cement to a dump site at Imphal. But due to severe insurgency problem in the State of Manipur, the transporters got stuck on the road and could not proceed to unload the cement at the dump site. Moreover, it is projected that the In-Charge of the Imphal dump site had abandoned his post. It is also projected that during that time there was excessive rainfall in the area. Accordingly, as the trucks were stranded in the highway to Imphal, those transporters had informed the Bokajan Cement Factory that there was every possibility of deterioration of quality of cement. The said transporters had also offered to purchase the cement at the prevailing market rate at Imphal. It is projected that the two options available were either the cement be recalled at the risk of deterioration of cement or that the offer of the transporters to purchase the cement is accepted. Accordingly, a decision was taken to accept the offer made by the transporters to purchase cement under transportation at its market price at Imphal. It is projected that as the condition of cement had not deteriorated or damaged, there was no possibility to invoke Clause 5.3 of the Terms & Conditions of Transportation. Moreover, as there was no mala fide intention of the transporters, Clause 5.4 of the said Terms & Conditions could also not be invoked.

4. However, the management found fault with the decision of the petitioner and the matter was enquired into. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent no. 1 (CMD) ordered an enquiry by order dated 01.11.2010. In the Enquiry Report dated 18.01.2011, it was accepted that the law and order situation at Imphal was not critical and benefit of doubt was in favour of the petitioner. As per the said report dated 18.01.2011, it was opined that there was no financial loss to the CCI and that no financial gain appeared to have been caused to the transporters, as such, it was not a case for imposition of penalty prescribed under Clause 5.3 and 5.4 of the Terms and Conditions of Contract for Transportation for non delivery of cement.

5. It is projected that for the first time on 14.11.2011, the petitioner was informed that 4 numbers of vigilance investigations/proceedings were instituted against him, viz., (i) CCI/VIG/BKO/8/154/5101; (ii) CCI/VIG/BKO/9/155/5100; (iii) CCI/VIG/BKO/8/156/5106; and (iv) CCI/VIG/BKO/9/157/5102. There