J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

FACTUAL MATRIX

1. The brief facts of the instant case are that, the Petitioner joined the Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent Corporation’) in the year 1981 as a Deputy Manager. In the year 1986, he was promoted to the rank of Manager. The Respondent Corporation received two telegrams dated 31st March 1995 and 3rd April 1995 in their Chairman’s office from the Army Purchase Organisation (hereinafter referred to as ‘APO’), Ministry of Defence, wherein the negotiation was proposed to be held with Public Sector Undertaking/State Level Co-operative Federations for the purpose of procurement of 19000 MT of various varieties of pulses, 9000 MT of Gram whole and 11000 MT of Barley. It categorically mentioned the eligibility criteria for the PSUs/Federation for negotiation, as to who could undertake to procure the contracted goods directly from the Mandis without involving middlemen.

2. The Chairman of the Respondent Corporation then put his remarks on the copy of telegram dated 3rd April 1995. The remarks were as follows:

"imp/immediate Good. We must participate in the negotiations. DM PDS HQ, Manager/Marketing, AM [Market/Intelligence] will attend the negotiations."

3. On 4th April 1995, a committee of three members, including the Petitioner, was constituted by the Chairman for negotiation with APO. On the same day, a meeting was held in the presence of the Chairman in order to give effect to the said proposal as contained in the said telegrams as the negotiation with APO was scheduled on 6th April 1995. It was decided in the said meeting to respond and negotiate for supply of various pulses and Barley to APO against their proposal. It was further decided that the Committee constituted with Manager (Marketing), DM (PDS and Estt.) and AM (Monitoring and Marketing Intelligence), would identify the supplier/party for transaction with APO.

4. On the basis of the approval of the Chairman, the Committee surveyed Naya Bazar, Khari Baoli and after obtaining information from APO, NCCF and DCCWS, identified M/s KNR Trading Co. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Party’) for transaction with APO. The same was duly approved by the Chairman of the Respondent Corporation. The rates quoted by the Party were tendered to the APO which was accepted by it and the Party paid a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as earnest money at the time of submission of the rates to APO. The Party also agreed to pledge an FDR of Rs.

5,00,000/- to the Respondent Corporation.

5. However, the ultimate transaction could not be materialised between the Respondent Corporation and APO. Consequently, M/s KNR Trading Company also stood on the same footing and could not supply the material as agreed between them and the respondent herein. The Party requested the Respondent Corporation to refund the earnest money of Rs. 2,00,000/- vide its letter dated 19th May 1995 and on the other hand, APO sought a claim of Rs. 52,50,000/- for dal masur, Rs. 33,11,306.79 for 500 MT Masoor whole and Rs. 32,15,600/- for 900MT dal Arhar, totalling to Rs.1,17,76,906.79, against the Respondent Corporation as they failed to make the supplies within the period prescribed by the APO vide its letter dated 26th February

1998.

6. APO raised an arbitral dispute against the Respondent and an award was passed in favour of the APO. The Respondent Corporation challenged the same before the Delhi High Court. On 21st July 2005, a charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner for the above-mentioned transactions that took place in the year 1995 and the Petitioner was asked to file his reply to the said memorandum. The Petitioner filed his reply vide letter dated 29th July 2005. 7. The Disciplinary Authority, after being not satisfied with the reply, appointed an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges as mentioned in the charge Sheet vide order dated 8th March 2006. After appreciating the evidences, the Inquiry Officer filed his report dated 1st