Disciplinary authorities must communicate disagreement with an inquiry officer's report to the employee before imposing penalties. When judicial oversight identifies procedural lapses in such enquiries, the appropriate remedy is to remand the matter to the authority to continue from the point of violation rather than setting aside the proceedings entirely.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 09.05.2025 passed in O.A./051/00141/2024 whereby and whereunder while allowing the original application, the learned Tribunal has quashed and set aside the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the disciplinary authority by which punishment of reduction by one stage lower in time scale of pay for a period of three years and three months without cumulative effect has been imposed upon the applicant, and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 27/28.02.2024 has also been set aside with a direction upon the respondents to restore the pay of the applicant w.e.f. 14.12.2023 and release the arrears with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition having been incorporated from the original application read hereunder as :-

While the Respondent No.1 was posted as General Manager, Blast Furnace, Bokaro Steel City with charge of the function of Respondent No. 5, the applicant was shocked to receive one charge Memorandum dated 10.01.2023 issued by respondent no. 4 under Rule 25 of SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 for totally vague, false and indistinct allegations mentioned under Article-l to V.

The applicant after receipt of the same submitted his self-explanatory statement of defence on 20.01.2023 in detail denying the allegations.

It is the case of the applicant/Respondent No.1 that without considering the above statement of defense, the respondent no. 4 appointed Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer vide order dated 06.02.2023.

It has been contended by the applicant that the entire action from the stage of issuance of charge memorandum upto the appointment of I.O. and P.O. was at the instance and dictates of Vigilance officials.

The I.O. proceeded with the enquiry under the influence of higher officials of Vigilance and conducted perfunctory enquiry in between 02.03.2023 to 17.04.2023. The P.O. brief was also submitted on 08.05.2023.

The applicant submitted his reply to P.O. brief on 30.05.2023 supported with documents and evidences showing/proving himself to be innocent.

Apart from above, the applicant has stated that during his 25 years of service in SAIL, BSL his devotion to duty is of highest level and integrity is above board which has been accepted by CGM (MRD) who is senior most CGM in Works Division of BSL.

The I.O. has submitted his report on 26.07.2023 holding that the charges under Article No. I to IV are not established and charge under Article No. V is partially established.

In this regard, the applicant has submitted that since the allegation No. V either can be fully proved or disproved but as per the I.O’s report it is partially established, hence it is completely vitiated and fit to be declared as null and void and ab initio wrong.

It has been alleged by the applicant that the respondent no. 4 has committed wrong while calling reply from the applicant within 7 days which is in violation of Rule 26.0(2) of SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 which mandatorily gives 15 days' time for giving reply to I.O’s report.

Applicant