IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.475-476 OF 2010
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.31376-31377 of 2008)
Nantu Ranjan Paul ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
These appeals are directed against the judgment of
the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in F.M.A.
No.481 of 2003 and F.M.A. No.482 of 2003 dated 17th June,
2008.
The brief facts which are necessary in these two
appeals are recapitulated as under:
The appellant, posted as Deputy Manager (Finance)
under Durgapur Steel Plant and discharging function of an
Assistant Manager (Finance) in relation to the miscellaneous
work of Bill Section of Finance and Accounts Branch, was
charged with the alleged misconduct of passing false bills.
The Inquiry Officer on 31st March, 1993, found that the charge
of lack of integrity and devotion to duty brought against the
appellant was not proved. However, the Inquiry Officer found
that the charge pertaining to negligence of duty on the part
of the appellant and also acting in the manner prejudicial
to the interest of the company was proved. Based on the
....2/-
- 2 -
finding of the Inquiry Officer dated 31st March, 1993, in
respect of the charges, the Disciplinary Authority directed
the appellant to suffer reduction to a lower stage in a time
scale. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before
the Chairman (SAIL).
The Additional Chief Vigilance Officer, Durgapur
Steel Plant vide order dated 8th January, 1994, rejected the
appeal. The appellant assailed the order of the Disciplinary
Authority dated 14th June, 1993, and rejection order dated 8th
January, 1994, preferred Writ Petition No.5360 of 1994 in the
High Court of Calcutta.
On 13th April, 1994, a similar charge was issued to
the appellant for two bills almost for the same period, i.e.,
1984 to 1987, namely, failed to maintain absolute integrity.
The second Inquiry Officer found the appellant to be guilty
of acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the
company and failing to maintain devotion of duty but the
appellant was, however, not found guilty to maintain absolute
integrity so far as second charge is concerned. The
Disciplinary Authority directed the appellant to suffer
reduction to a lower post. In this matter also, the
appellant preferred an appeal before the Chairman (SAIL),
which was dismissed later on.
The appellant preferred writ petition before the
Calcutta High Court being C.O. No.6493 of 1995. Both the
writ petitions were heard by the learned Single Judge and on
9th October, 2002, these writ petitions were allowed holding
the imposition of major penalty as illegal and the same was
set aside. The learned Single Judge further directed the
respondents to give the appellant all service benefits of
backwages as if no order of major penalty was imposed upon
him.
....3/-
- 3 -
The respondents, being aggrieved by the judgment of
the learned Single Judge, preferred two appeals before the
Division Bench. The Division Bench party allowed both F.M.A.
No.481 of 2003 and F.M.A. No.482 of 2003 by directing:
(a) F.M.A. No.481 of 2003 was partly allowed by
directing the appellant's C.O. No.6493(W) of
1995 to be heard afresh by the learned Single
Judge at the earliest; and
(b) F.M.A. No.482 of 2003 was partly allowed
whereby the reduction in the scale of pay of the
appellant was maintained. Only reduction with
cumulative effect was deleted.
The appellant preferred these appeals by way of
special leave petitions against the judgment of the Division
Bench.
The Division Bench remitted the matter to the learned
Single Judge to be heard afresh and according to the Division
Bench, the learned Single Judge ought to have given separate
judgment dealing with each and every issue raised by the
parties.
We find no serious infirmity with the impugned
judgement of the Division Bench. However, the appellant has
been facing inquiry and Court proceedings for almost twenty
five years and at this stage remitting the matter to the
learned Single Judge would be very harsh to the appellant.
On consideration of the totality of the facts and
circumstances and in the interest of justice, we direct that,
instead of withholding of two increments, three increments be
withheld which should meet the ends of justice. In that view
of the matter, we set aside only that part of the judgement
by which it has been remitted to the learned Single Judge.
We have passed this order primarily to avoid, avoidable
litigation which may take several years before it is finally
....4/-
- 4 -
adjudicated. We, accordingly, put a quietus to the entire
dispute after balancing the equities.
The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.
The parties to bear their own costs.
......................J.
[DALVEER BHANDARI]
......................J.
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY]
New Delhi,
January 19, 2010.
