ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner who was holding the post of Deputy Chief Material Manager in Grade E-5 in the Purchase Department of Bokaro Steel Plant was charge-sheeted and was proceeded depart-mentally for the following charges quoted hereinbelow :-- "It has been reported that Sri B.P. Sinha while processing the case for procurement of G.I. Pipes issued LTE to M/s Steel Man and had thus committed the following act of commission and omission : Sri B.P. Sinha issued inquiry to M/s Steel Man for supply of G.I. Pipes without approved from GM (MMJ/ED (MM) as the party is not registered with BSL for G.I. Pipes. The party is registered with BSL for supply of some other items. By the aforesaid acts of omission and commission, Sri B.P. Sinha has contravened clause Nos. 4.0(i)(ii) and 5.0(5) of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977. 2. The detail of the charges was that an MPR dated 13.10.1997 was raised for supply of G.I. Pipes at an estimated cost of Rs. 1,94,000/-. For procurement of the materials. Limited Tender Enquiry dated 4.2.1998 was issued to seven firms including M/s. Steel Man as per the recommendation of the Indenting Department. All the seven firms submitted their quotation including M/s. Steel Man which emerged as the 1-1 tenderer. It was said that M/s, Steel Man was registered with the Bokaro Steel Plant for the items Rubber Bush, Low Pressure Water Hose, Fasteners and Screws and GM Valves only and the said firm was not registered for G.I. Pipes. It is said that the petitioner being the Purchase Officer, wrongly issued Limited Tender Enquiry (LTE) to the firm M/s. Steel Man for supply of G.I. Pipes though the said firm was not registered for the G.I. Pipes. It was further said that the LTE was issued to the said firm M/s. Steel Man, without approval of the competent authority and thereby the petitioner contravened clause Nos. 4.0 (i) and (ii) and 5.0 (5) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977. 3. The petitioner submitted his reply in his defence stating, inter alto, that the LTE was issued to M/s. Steel Man on recommendation of the Indenting Officer of the Indenting Department, in the prescribed format and the same was issued after obtaining approval of the competent authority i.e. the acting Chief Material Manager. 3. The petitioner submitted his reply in his defence stating, inter alto, that the LTE was issued to M/s. Steel Man on recommendation of the Indenting Officer of the Indenting Department, in the prescribed format and the same was issued after obtaining approval of the competent authority i.e. the acting Chief Material Manager. The price offered and quoted by M/s. Steel Man was Rs. 1,81,351/- against the estimated cost of Rs. 1,94,000/- and the said firm emerged as lowest bidder amongst the seven firms who had submitted quotations. It was further stated that M/s. Steel Man had supplied G.I. Pipes in the past also, though the said firm was not registered, as such, for supply of G.I. Pipes. Further that since the firm, M/s. Steel Man was a registered firm with the Bokaro Steel Plant for supply of other items so the firm was not new to the Bokaro Steel Limited and, therefore, the approval of the Head of the Department was not taken. There was no malafide intention on the part of the petitioner because the LTE was issued to seven firms on the basis of the recommendation of the Indenting Officer of the Indenting Department. 4. From the Enquiry Report, it appears that the Enquiry Officer on assessment of the evidence adduced in the proceeding found the following facts :-- "1. Concept of itemwise registration before March 2000 was not there in practice in Purchase Department. 2. There was no practice of having an itemwise list of Venders with concerned Purchase Officer. 3. That time the concept of a new firm was the firm who never had any business with BSL but being considered for first time for issue of Purchase Enquiry. 4. M/s. The Steel Man as has business in the past with BSL, cannot be considered as a new firm. 5. Approval of HoD needed only in the case of new firm regarding issue of LTE. 6. Last supplier is considered the issue of Enquiry if there was no quality complaint of delivery failure and had the proven capacity and resource. 7. In this case Indenter had recommended the names of venders including the last supplier for issue of enquiry. 5. Approval of HoD needed only in the case of new firm regarding issue of LTE. 6. Last supplier is considered the issue of Enquiry if there was no quality complaint of delivery failure and had the proven capacity and resource. 7. In this case Indenter had recommended the names of venders including the last supplier for issue of enquiry. 5. On the basis of the assessment of the evidence, the Enquiry Officer held that -the petitioner violated the procedure as laid down in the purchase manual but he acted exactly on the lines of the prevailing practices followed in the Purchase Department at that time and, therefore, if the case is considered in isolation then the charges against the petitioner is proved, otherwise not. 6. The petitioner was asked to show cause on the basis of the Enquiry Report, against the proposed punishment, to which the petitioner filed his representation stating in detail about his defence and submitted that he has not caused any loss to the Company rather the Company saved Rs. 12,649/- as the firm M/s. Steel Man being the lowest tenderer quoted Rs. 1,81,351,00/- against the estimated cost of Rs. 1,94,000/-. 7. It appear that the specific case of the petitioner was that there was no practice for itemwise registration before March 2000, rather prior to March, 2000, several Limited Tender Enquires and orders were placed to different firms even though the firms were registered for the specific items. Further that in the present case, the approval of the competent authority was also obtained and, therefore, the present case, cannot be considered in isolation. 8. The Disciplinary authority i.e. the Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, found the charges proved against the petitioner and imposed punishment of reduction to a lower post, grade and time, scale of pay vide order dated 4.8.2001 as contained in Annexure-6. 9. The petitioner thereafter, filed appeal to the Chairman, Steel Authority of India against the said order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary authority. The appellate authority passed the following order :-- "I have gone through the appeal of Shri B.P. Sinha, Manager (T and D), BSL and related records. 9. The petitioner thereafter, filed appeal to the Chairman, Steel Authority of India against the said order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary authority. The appellate authority passed the following order :-- "I have gone through the appeal of Shri B.P. Sinha, Manager (T and D), BSL and related records. I find that the issues raised by Shri Sinha in his appeal have either been already addressed during the Enquiry and have been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing punishment or are not relevant with the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him. As Shri Sinha has brought no fresh issues, his appeal stands rejected." 10. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that by issuing Limited Tender Enquiry to M/s. Steel Man knowing fully well that the said firm was not registered for G.I. Pipes and that without taking approval of the competent authority i.e. the Head of the Material Division, the petitioner violated Clause 6.5 of the Modified Purchase Procedure, 1992 which was applicable at the relevant time. 11. The relevant extract of Modified Purchase Procedure, 1992 has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. Clause 6.5 of the said Modified Purchase Procedure reads as follows :-- "LTE should be issued to only the registered suppliers. Only in very exceptional cases where a new party has come to knowledge who is likely to be more competitive in the bid and has capability to meet the requirement of the Plant/Unit but which has not been registered. LTE may be issued with the approval of Head of the Department." 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner acted exactly on the same line which was prevalent at that time and was being followed in the Purchase Department has not at all been considered, either by the Disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority and, therefore, the case of the petitioner could not have been considered in isolation for imposing extreme punishment. 13. 13. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer did not give any clear-cut finding that the charges against the petitioner were proved, rather on the assessment of the evidence, the Enquiry, Officer found that the concept of registration before March, 2000 was there in practice in the Purchase Department and further that M/s. Steel Man was already a registered firm with BSL, may be for some other items, therefore, the said firm cannot be considered to be a new firm and the approval of the Head of the Department needed, only in case of new firm regarding issue of Limited Tender Enquiry and, therefore, it is submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner without considering the above finding of the Enquiry Officer is absolutely bad. 14. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Disciplinary authority has in fact differed with the findings on fact arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, it was encumbent upon him to assign reasons for his disagreement with the conclusion and findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer but as it appears that no such reason has been assigned by the Disciplinary authority and, therefore, the order imposing punishment against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in the case of S.B.I, and Ors. v. Arvind K. Shukla, reported in, AIR 2001 SC 2398 . 15. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited and, therefore, the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 should not act as an appellate authority and, therefore, no interference is called by this Court. 16. It is submitted by the respondents that the Disciplinary authority has inflicted major punishment to the petitioner completely in tune with the finding of the Enquiry Officer by taking a lenient view and awarded minimum punishment under Rule 23 (e) of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules as compared to the other penalties provided under the said Rule 23, such as dismissed etc. It is further submitted that the appellate authority after considering all the aspects, rightly rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. 17. It is further submitted that the appellate authority after considering all the aspects, rightly rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. 17. From the order as contained in Annexure-6, i.e. the order imposing punishment passed by the Managing Director-cum- Disciplinary authority, it appears that he has stated in the order that on careful consideration of the Report of the Enquiry authority, the statement of defence of B.P. Singh and other related records, he found that the firm M/s. Steel Man was not registered with BSL for G.I. Pipes and that the petitioner issued LTE to M/s. Steel Man without taking approval of the competent authority and thus violated the procedure for issue of LTE and committed procedural lapses hence charges are proved. From the above finding, it is clear that the Disciplinary authority has not stated a word in his order about the findings of the Enquiry Officer which was based on the basis of assessment of evidence. 18. It further appears that the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence found that there was recommendation of the Indenting Officer of the Indenting Department and the approval of the acting Chief Material Manager had already been taken, but neither the Disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority did consider the said facts nor any reason has been recorded as to why the present case was considered in isolation, when the said practise was prevalent at the relevant time. 19. I find, that the findings of the Disciplinary authority was in fact against the finding of the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, it was encumbent upon him to assign reasons for his disagreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, which was based on the assessment of the evidence on the record. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.B.I, and others, (supra) cited by the petitioner. I find that the order of the disciplinary authority contained in Annexure-6 is not based on the materials on record and, as such, the same is perverse. It is a settled law that the High Court in its writ jurisdiction can interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority if it finds that the same is not based on the materials on record. Therefore, the order as contained in Annexure-8 passed by the appellate authority is simply a mechanical order. It is a settled law that the High Court in its writ jurisdiction can interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority if it finds that the same is not based on the materials on record. Therefore, the order as contained in Annexure-8 passed by the appellate authority is simply a mechanical order. From the very face of it, it appears that without considering the relevant materials and without application of his mind, he has simply affirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary authority. 20. In view of my discussions and findings above, I hold that the order as contained in Annexure-6 passed by the Disciplinary authority holding him guilty and imposing punishment against the petitioner, as well as the order as contained in Annexure-8 passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained. 21. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the orders as contained in Annexures 6 and 8 as aforesaid are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.