ORDER Heard Mr. B.K. Bhattarcharjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 19-02-2009 issued by the Chairman and Managing Director, Oil India Limited imposing the minor penalty of “censure” on the petitioner. 3. Facts of the case may be briefly noted. 4. Petitioner joined service in the Oil India Limited (OIL) as Accounts Clerk in Grade III on 18-07-1983. He was posted at Bay Exploration Project of OIL at Bhubaneswar. In the course of his service, petitioner became Manager (F & A), OIL and was posted at Duliajan. 5. While he was serving at Duliajan, General Manager (F & A) acting as the Disciplinary Authority issued memorandum dated 10-03-2005 informing the petitioner that an enquiry was proposed to be held against him under Rule 25 of OIL Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1982, as amended (1982 Rules). The substance of the imputation of misconduct, which will be referred to in detail at a subsequent stage of the judgment, was the alleged leniency shown by the petitioner towards M/S ATS while he was functioning as Senior Accounts Officer/Project Incharge, Bay Exploration Project at Bhubaneswar which was prejudicial to the interest of the company resulting in huge loss. Petitioner was charged of having failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and thereby committing misconduct. Alongwith the memorandum dated 10-03-2005, a statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the articles of charge, a list of documents to be relied upon to sustain the charges levelled and a list of witnesses who would be relied upon to prove the charges were enclosed. 6. Petitioner submitted written statement in defence dated 26-03-2005. It was stated that the proposed enquiry was sought to be initiated after a lapse of more than 2 years of the vigilance enquiry. It was also stated that the charges framed against the petitioner were not specific and therefore not maintainable. He however denied the allegations made against him and asserted that he committed no wrong doing. Failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty did not arise at all and therefore he did not commit any misconduct as alleged. 7. It was also stated that the charges framed against the petitioner were not specific and therefore not maintainable. He however denied the allegations made against him and asserted that he committed no wrong doing. Failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty did not arise at all and therefore he did not commit any misconduct as alleged. 7. It appears that the written statement of the petitioner was not accepted by the disciplinary authority and accordingly it was decided to hold an enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer. 8. Departmental enquiry was held and on conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority on 16-06-2007. In his report, the Enquiry Officer held Articles I & III to be proved and Article II as partly proved. 9. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and comments of the petitioner was sought for on the report. Petitioner submitted his detailed report on 19-07-2007 denying the charges and contesting the report. He requested the disciplinary authority to consider his response sympathetically and to exonerate him from all the charges. 10. Chairman and Managing Director of OIL acting as the disciplinary authority considered the record of enquiry and the explanation furnished by the petitioner. It was held that the charge of contravention of Rule IV of the 1982 Rules was proved against the petitioner. After due consideration, the disciplinary authority imposed the minor penalty of “censure” on the petitioner vide the order dated 19-02-2009. 11. Against the aforesaid order of penalty, petitioner preferred an appeal dated 14-07-2009. The appeal was considered by the Board of Directors on 25-06-2010. However, the penalty imposed was upheld by the appellate authority. This was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 18-08-2010 issued by the Chairman and Managing Director. 12. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 13. Respondents have filed a common affidavit. It is stated that while the petitioner was posted at Bhubaneswar in the Bay Exploration Project, he was associated with disposal of scrap materials of the company lying at Paradeep Port. When discrepancies were noticed, the Chief Vigilance Officer of the company instituted a vigilance case against him being Vigilance Case No.03/2002. 13. Respondents have filed a common affidavit. It is stated that while the petitioner was posted at Bhubaneswar in the Bay Exploration Project, he was associated with disposal of scrap materials of the company lying at Paradeep Port. When discrepancies were noticed, the Chief Vigilance Officer of the company instituted a vigilance case against him being Vigilance Case No.03/2002. Thereafter, memorandum of charge was issued against the petitioner on 10-03-2005 following which departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in which he was afforded all reasonable opportunities to defend his case by way of cross-examination of management witnesses and adducing his own witnesses. The Enquiry Officer on scrutiny of the evidence adduced and documents exhibited came to the conclusion that the charges were proved against the petitioner. Accordingly, he submitted his report, copy of which was furnished to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. After the petitioner submitted his response to the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority considered the same alongwith the record of enquiry and thereafter imposed the minor penalty of “censure” on the petitioner. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority. It is contended that the charges framed against the petitioner were enquired into by an Enquiry Officer appointed on the recommendation of the Central Vigilance Commission. In the enquiry charges against the petitioner were established. It is also stated that since various officers were involved in the commission of irregularities, a common proceeding was drawn up against all the officers involved and as the petitioner was part of the collective decision leading to commission of irregularity, proceedings were drawn up against him alongwith others. Disciplinary authority had taken a very lenient view of the misconduct and only minor penalty was imposed. Respondents had acted with restraint and in a very balanced manner. No case for interference is made out. Therefore writ petition should be dismissed. 14. Petitioner has filed reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit it is contended that there were no materials to hold the petitioner to be guilty of the charges. An endeavour is made to link the departmental proceeding with denial of promotion to the petitioner. 15. Mr. B.K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges are vague. No enquiry can be sustained on the basis of such vague charges. He submits that vital and material witnesses were not examined. An endeavour is made to link the departmental proceeding with denial of promotion to the petitioner. 15. Mr. B.K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges are vague. No enquiry can be sustained on the basis of such vague charges. He submits that vital and material witnesses were not examined. Officials belonging to M/S ATS, Customs and Orissa Mining and Mineral Development Corporation were not examined in the departmental proceeding. He also submits that the Chairman and Managing Director of OIL was himself instrumental and signatory to all dealings with M/S ATS. Therefore, being a party to the dealings, he could not have acted as the disciplinary authority which vitiated the fairness of the proceeding. Finally, he submits that findings were arrived at by the Enquiry Officer on surmises and conjectures and on that basis the charges against the petitioner could not have been held to be proved. He therefore submits that the impugned penalty should be set aside and quashed. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions: - (2009) 2 SCC 570 , Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 337 , Eerati Laxman Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. (2013) 6 SCC 530 , Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. A Masilamani. (2013) 6 SCC 515 , Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. YP Education Society & Ors. 16. Opposing the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that the challenge made to the departmental proceeding and the imposition of penalty is without any substance. Both disciplinary authority and the Enquiry Officer had complied with all the procedural requirements to ensure that petitioner had a fair and reasonable opportunity of defending his case. There was full compliance with the principles of natural justice and after due consideration the impugned penalty was imposed. Though the departmental proceeding was initiated for imposing major penalty, the disciplinary authority acting in a most fair manner imposed only a minor penalty though it was a matter where major penalty could have been imposed. He submits that the charges were not vague as alleged and in the enquiry the prosecution relied upon the witnesses who were named in the list of witnesses. Petitioner had ample opportunity for producing his witnesses which he failed to do. He submits that the charges were not vague as alleged and in the enquiry the prosecution relied upon the witnesses who were named in the list of witnesses. Petitioner had ample opportunity for producing his witnesses which he failed to do. Question is not whether Chairman and Managing Director was part of the dealings with M/S ATS. Allegation was misleading the authority with malafide intention while dealing with M/S ATS. Enquiry Officer submitted his report based on evidence and materials on record. Findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse. 17. In his reply, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that since petitioner was serving in Grade D, as per the 1982 Rules, his disciplinary authority ought to have been the Head of the Department not below Grade H and the appellate authority ought to have been a Functional Director. Therefore, the Chairman and Managing Director, who is otherwise an appellate authority in respect of officers in Grade F and G, had no jurisdiction to act as the disciplinary authority of the petitioner and to impose the impugned penalty. 18. Submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties have been considered. 19. The first ground of attack by the petitioner is that the charges framed against the petitioner were vague. On such vague charges, no enquiry could have been conducted and no findings could have been given. To appreciate the above submission, the statement of articles of charge framed against the petitioner may be referred to. For the sake of convenience, the same is quoted hereunder:- “STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI C.R. DASH, MANAGER (F& A), OIL INDIA LIMITED, DULIAJAN (S.CODE-1837) That Shri C.R. Dash, Manager (F&A), Oil India Limited, Duliajan (S.Code-1837), previously remained posted and functioning as Sr. Accounts Officer/Project In-charge, BEP. The said Shri C.R. Dash, while working as such, is alleged to have shown leniency towards M/s ATS and caused favour to them, committed willful negligence and carelessness in the performance of his duties and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Company, which resulted in huge financial loss as could be seen from the following- 2. It is alleged that a sale order No.SALE/003/93 dated 06-08-1993 for disposal of scrap material was placed on M/s ATS by BEP/OIL, on which custom clearance was delayed inordinately. It is alleged that a sale order No.SALE/003/93 dated 06-08-1993 for disposal of scrap material was placed on M/s ATS by BEP/OIL, on which custom clearance was delayed inordinately. However, B/E was cleared on 15-10-1997, but the party kept on asking for the extensions in time which were granted. Following to the generation of additional scrap of 400 MT, Shri Dash in violation of procedure offered the said additional scrap to M/S ATS @ Rs.1809/- without taking approval of the competent authority. An unjustified/illogical and baseless proposal dated 29-07-1998 was thereafter moved, which was rejected by the Director (F). M/s ATS subsequently used this uncalled for and unauthorized offer in obtaining interim order dated 18-08-1998 from the Orissa High Court. 3. It is alleged that he alongwith Shri D.K. Dutta, the then Sr. Manager (M) unfavourably negotiated with the party M/s ATS vide Minutes of meeting dated 19-02-1999 and the sale price of rock bits, which was fixed at Rs.55009/- PMT, in the first Sale Order was reduced subsequently to an unjustified/unreasonable price of Rs.3000/- PMT, which would have fetch revenue to the tune of Rs.8,32,144/- for the Company, despite the fact that the party himself had committed to take the rock bits @55009/ PMT on 29-07-1998. 4. It is alleged that he along with other members of the committee submitted a proposal No.BEP/225 dated 02-02-1999 seeking approval of the competent authority wherein vital facts were concealed and misleading information was furnished for disposal of additional scrap of 400 MT and rock bits of earlier sale order. The said misleading note/proposal submitted to the corporate office, lead to erroneous approval by the CMD. This was a motivated and willful attempt to cause undue favour to the party. Thus, by the above acts of omissions & commissions, Shri C.R. Dash, Manager (F&A), Oil India Limited, Duliajan (S.Code-1837) is alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty thereby contravened the provisions of sub rule 1.1 & 1.2 of Rule 4 and committed misconduct under sub rule 5 & 9 of Rule 5 of OIL Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1982 (as amended).” 20. From a careful perusal of the articles of charge framed against the petitioner as extracted above, it is seen that the basic allegation against the petitioner was that he had shown undue favour towards M/S ATS which adversely affected the financial interest of the company. A sale order was placed by OIL with M/S ATS on 06-08-1993 for disposal of scrap material in the Bay Exploration Project. The party kept on asking for extension of time for disposal of scrap material which were granted. When additional scrap materials were generated, petitioner offered the additional scrap to M/S ATS at a very low rate without taking approval of the competent authority. This proposal was ultimately rejected by the Director (Finance). But M/S ATS used this offer to strengthen its case filed in the Orissa High Court thereby obtaining interim order. As per the second charge, it was alleged that petitioner alongwith the then senior manager Shri D.K. Dutta had conducted negotiation with M/S ATS in a manner which was unfavourable to the company. While the sale price of rock bits (scrap material) was fixed at Rs.55,009.00 per metric tone, it was reduced to an abnormal low of Rs.3000/- per metric tonne thus causing loss to the company. Charge No.3 related to submission of proposal by the petitioner alongwith other officials before the competent authority seeking approval for disposal of additional scrap by concealing vital facts and by furnishing misleading information which was intended to favour the party. Thus approval of the Chairman and Managing Director was obtained by concealing vital facts and by furnishing misleading information. Details of concealment of facts and furnishing of misleading information have been stated in detail in the statement of imputations of misconduct in support of the articles of charge, which are as under:- “That although, Shri CR Dash, the then Project In-charge (BEP) intended to sell 400 MT additional scrap lying in the port, but the proposal dated 29-07-1998 put up to the Director (Finance) was silent on the said additional scrap. This note was misleading and there was concealment of facts as can be seen from the following:- (a) The said proposal stated about the balance quantity of materials including rock bits, without quantifying/specifying with an oblique intention to give benefit to the party, so that it can lift entire scrap including rock bits @ of previous sale order. This note was misleading and there was concealment of facts as can be seen from the following:- (a) The said proposal stated about the balance quantity of materials including rock bits, without quantifying/specifying with an oblique intention to give benefit to the party, so that it can lift entire scrap including rock bits @ of previous sale order. M/S ATS subsequently claimed the entire lot of additional scrap including 400 MTs declared as such on 20-05-1998, as a part of the initial sale order of 1993. (b) The said proposal was silent on the recommendation dated 20-05-1998 of the joint inspection team for disposal of unused material weighting about 400 MT. (c) The said proposal did not mention that the offer to the party M/S ATS, for sale of additional scrap was in fact initiated by the Project In-charge (BEP) (Shri Dash). (d) The said proposal stated that the party expressed their willingness to take delivery of the balance quantity of materials in the meeting held on 04-12-1997. But this balance quantity can not be linked with 400 MT additional scrap because the said 400 MT materials were declared as scrap only on 20-05-1998 by the joint inspection team and this issue did not exist on 04-12-1997, the day of the said meeting.” 21. Therefore it is quite evident from the above that the charges framed against the petitioner were not vague. Those were comprehendible and cannot be said to be beyond comprehension. In fact, those were responded to by the petitioner in his written statement of defence as well as in his response to the report of the Enquiry Officer. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the three charges framed against the petitioner were vague thus cannot be accepted. 22. Coming to the second ground of challenge i.e. that vital and materials witnesses were not examined, it is seen that the disciplinary authority had furnished to the petitioner a list of two witnesses who would be relied upon to sustain the charges leveled against the petitioner. The two witnesses were Captain Pradip Kumar, Senior Advisor (Legal), OIL, Duliajan and Shri S.K. Deka, Deputy Manager (Vigilance), OIL, Duliajan. The disciplinary authority also enclosed a list of thirty one documents to be relied upon to sustain the charges leveled. The two witnesses were Captain Pradip Kumar, Senior Advisor (Legal), OIL, Duliajan and Shri S.K. Deka, Deputy Manager (Vigilance), OIL, Duliajan. The disciplinary authority also enclosed a list of thirty one documents to be relied upon to sustain the charges leveled. In the departmental enquiry both the listed witnesses gave evidence and they were also cross examined by the petitioner. When the defence case was taken up, though the petitioner requested for one more document to be exhibited, which was allowed considering its relevancy, the petitioner neither asked for any defence witness nor produced any one during the enquiry. As per the report of the Enquiry Officer, petitioner also did not offer himself as his own defence witness. The defence case was accordingly closed with the consent of the petitioner. However, before closing the enquiry proceeding petitioner was generally examined by the Enquiry Officer. After the proceedings were closed, petitioner submitted his written brief on 11-01-2007. If the petitioner was of the view that relevant witnesses were not examined, he could have given his list of such witnesses for examination in the enquiry. But he did not do so. In so far the disciplinary authority is concerned, it was of the view that the two listed witnesses were sufficient to prove the charges against the petitioner. Therefore this ground of the petitioner also does not hold water. 23. In so far the third ground of challenge is concerned i.e., the Chairman and Managing Director being himself involved in the decision making process, it was in fact the charge (Charge No.III) that petitioner alongwith other members had submitted proposal for disposal of additional scrap for approval of the competent authority by concealing vital facts and by furnishing misleading information. How vital facts were concealed and misleading information was furnished were elaborately explained in the statement of imputations of misconduct in support of the articles of charge, the relevant portion of which has been extracted above. This aspect was elaborately gone into by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence adduced and held the charge to be proved. In so far Charge No.III is concerned, it was dealt by the Enquiry Officer in the following matter :- “Article-III It is alleged that the CO alongwith Shri D.K. Dutta, then Sr. This aspect was elaborately gone into by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence adduced and held the charge to be proved. In so far Charge No.III is concerned, it was dealt by the Enquiry Officer in the following matter :- “Article-III It is alleged that the CO alongwith Shri D.K. Dutta, then Sr. Manager (M) unfavourably negotiated with the party M/s ATS vide Minutes of meeting dated 19-02-99 and the sale price of rock bits, which was fixed at Rs.55009/- PMT in the first Sale Order dated 06-08-93 as quoted in the bid by the party was reduced subsequently to an unjustified/unreasonable price of Rs,3000/- PMT, which would have fetched more revenue to the tune of Rs.8,32,144 for the Company, despite the fact that the party himself had committed to take the rock bits @ Rs.55009/- PMT on 29-07-98. As concluded against Article-II of the charge above, it has been established that facts were concealed and misleading information was included in the proposal in Ex.S.20. It has further been alleged in para 16 of the statement of imputations that after approval of the proposal in Ex.S.20, Sh.C.R. Dash, then Project Incharge and Sh. D.K. Dutta, Sr. Materials Manager held meeting with M/s ATS on 19-02-1999 [Ex.S.21] for price negotiation. But they agreed all points to the advantage of M/s ATS and failed to negotiate any point in favour of the company as may be seen from the following:- (i) M/s ATS refused to agree to the proposal to absorb Rs.47,000/- (as mentioned in Ex.S.20) being the price difference against earlier contract and unwarranted legal expenses incurred by OIL. (ii) M/s ATS had prevailed upon the OIL officials not to forfeit the security deposit amounting to Rs.24,000/- inspite of the fact that security deposit had to be forfeited for non-lifting of all the items as per earlier sale order [Ex.S.2]. (iii) OIL officials unreasonably and unjustifiably agreed to reduce the price of 16 MT rock bits from the accepted sale order rate of Rs.55,009/- PMT to Rs.3,000/- PMT to the benefit of M/S ATS, inspite of the fact that the bidder himself offered the same rate as per his bid and also confirmed it vide his letter dated 29-07-1998 [Ex.S.17]. (iii) OIL officials unreasonably and unjustifiably agreed to reduce the price of 16 MT rock bits from the accepted sale order rate of Rs.55,009/- PMT to Rs.3,000/- PMT to the benefit of M/S ATS, inspite of the fact that the bidder himself offered the same rate as per his bid and also confirmed it vide his letter dated 29-07-1998 [Ex.S.17]. Since, the rock bits were later lifted by M/s ATS @ Rs.3,000/- PMT in Feb.2000, the company could fetch Rs.8.32 lacs less as compared to the earlier sale order dated 06-08-1993 [Ex.S.2]. Even the customs authorities have fixed the rate of scrap rock bits at Rs.10,000/- PMT [Ex.S.24]. The CO has contended that agreed price of Rs.3000/- MT for the rock bits was provisional, and subject to the third party assessment. No evidence has been produced by the prosecution to prove the then market price of scrap rock bit. He has further contended that the charge has been framed on merely upon assumptions/presumptions/surmises and without any documentary evidence. In this regard it is mentioned that in concluding para at page 10 of Ex.S.21 it has been recorded that minutes of the subject meeting held on 19-02-1999 shall be treated as final on withdrawal of court case. Accordingly, order for scrap of rock bits of 16 MT was placed on the party on 20-02-1999 [Ex.S.22] at the rate of Rs.3000/-PMT wherein it has again been mentioned that the price of rock bits was provisional. Ultimately, the rock bits were sold to the party @ Rs.3000/- PMT, as provisionally agreed upon in the meeting held on 19-02-1999, minutes of which were duly signed by Sh.D.K. Dutta, Sh. C.R. Dash and Sh. C.S. Nanda, Prop. of M/s ATS. The rate of rock bits in the original sale order Ex.S.2 was Rs.55009/- PMT and finally this was sold at a very low price of Rs.3000/- PMT despite the fact that the party itself was ready to lift the rock bits at a price of Rs.55009/- even as on 29-07-1998 [Ex.S.18]. Therefore, it is sell established that huge financial loss has been caused to the company in this case. The CO has pointed out in his brief that prosecution has not given what was the prevailing market price for the rock bits. This question of the CO seems surprising, as he alongwith Sh. Therefore, it is sell established that huge financial loss has been caused to the company in this case. The CO has pointed out in his brief that prosecution has not given what was the prevailing market price for the rock bits. This question of the CO seems surprising, as he alongwith Sh. Dutta was responsible for negotiating with the party to arrive at a reasonable price. Therefore, it was his duty to make a market survey and come up with the prevailing market price, which he did not. Further, pointing out about market price in this case at this stage is only an after thought just to save his skin and cover an irregularity. The contentions of the CO in this case do not have any leg to stand, and there is sufficient evidence adduced during inquiry and as discussed above, to hold him guilty of misconduct as alleged in the charge. In view of the above, the CO is blameworthy of the misconduct as alleged in the charge alongwith other officials. This Article of charge is, therefore, held as proved against the CO.” Therefore from a careful analysis of the above, this contention made on behalf of the petitioner cannot also be sustained. 24. The contention that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence and suffers from perversity is also not tenable. A bare perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer would show that the same is based on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced in the course of the enquiry. It is a settled proposition of law that adequacy or sufficiency of evidence is not a ground for interfering with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in a departmental enquiry. Writ Court will not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings of the Enquiry Officer and will not ordinarily re-appreciate the evidence already examined by the Enquiry Officer. From a perusal of the enquiry report, it cannot be said that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are based on no evidence and therefore are perverse findings. The findings are backed by examination of the evidence adduced and discussions made thereon. The findings relating to Charge No.III has already been extracted above. From a perusal of the enquiry report, it cannot be said that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are based on no evidence and therefore are perverse findings. The findings are backed by examination of the evidence adduced and discussions made thereon. The findings relating to Charge No.III has already been extracted above. Relevant portion of the findings relating to the other two charges are extracted hereunder:- “Article-I From the documentary evidence as enumerated above, it is established that the B/E in question was submitted very late, which was cleared by Customs, on 15-10-1997 against the Sale Order dated 06-08-1993 [Ex.S.2] and the party kept on asking for extensions for lifting the scrap material, which were granted [Ex.S.8]. It is also established that Sh. C.R. Dash, then Project In-charge, held a meeting with M/s ATS on 29-07-1998 wherein he offered 400 MTs of additional scrap to be sold to the party @ Rs.1809 PMT [Ex.S.18] as per the rate / terms of the previous sale order of 1993. It is also evidenced from this exhibit that M/s ATS had also offered the price for rock bits @ Rs.55009/- PMT which was assessed earlier for delivery. Sh. Dash submitted a proposal on 29-07-1998 to Director (Finance) [Ex.S.17] stating that M/s ATS had offered vide their letter dated 29-07-1998 to take delivery of scrap casing and tubings @ 1809/- PMT and rock bits also as per earlier tender price. The proposal in Ex-S-17 was not approved by the Director [Finance] and he instead approved calling limited tenders, and accordingly limited tender was floated in August, 1998 as mentioned in Ex-S-20. The CO has contended that he had made no proposal for disposal of additional scrap of 400 MT casings, and the charge against him has been framed merely on assumptions/presumptions/surmises and without any evidence to support the same. It is seen from Ex.S.16 that the above scrap casings was declared as unusable on 20-05-1998 and was required to disposed off. This additional scrap was not within the scope of the sale order dated 06-08-1993, as this was declared much subsequently to the original sale order i.e. on 20-05-1998 [Ex.S.16]. This position has also been confirmed by SW-1 and SW-2 in their depositions. A fresh process of tendering should, therefore, have been followed in this case. This additional scrap was not within the scope of the sale order dated 06-08-1993, as this was declared much subsequently to the original sale order i.e. on 20-05-1998 [Ex.S.16]. This position has also been confirmed by SW-1 and SW-2 in their depositions. A fresh process of tendering should, therefore, have been followed in this case. The value of casing scrap was proposed at Rs.1809/- PMT, whereas the custom authorities assessed the rate @ Rs.6000/- PMT, vide their order dated 20-01-2000 [Ex.S.24]. In this regard it is stated that in the original sale order dated 06-08-1993 [ Ex.S.2], the rate mentioned for the casing scrap was Rs.1809/- PMT although subsequently the custom authorities assessed the same at Rs.6000/- PMT. The correct procedure in this case, should have been fresh tendering and to sell the material to the highest bidder, at rates offered by him. But this procedure has not been followed, by the CO and other officers. In his letter dated 29-07-1998 [ Ex.S.17] to the Director [Finance], the CO has inter alia mentioned that “M/s ATS has offered vide their letter dated 29-07-1998 to take delivery of scrap casings and tubings @ Rs.1809/- PMT and rock bits also as per earlier tender price and last delivery was taken by them in March, 1998 against the previous order”. From the letter dated 29-07-1998 [Ex.S.18] which has been referred to by the CO in Ex.S.17, it is seen that Sh. Nanda, Prop. of M/s ATS has mentioned in Ex.S.18 that “ I also agree to your proposal to take delivery of the entire quantity of scrap casings/pipes in case the materials found to be more as per present assessment and will pay all the duty/cost of the materials immediately at the time of final lifting from your Paradip scrap yard”. In the end of the letter, Sh. Nanda has requested to Sh. Dash to communicate the decision in this matter at an early date. From this, it is amply established that the proposal in question for sale of 400 MT of scrap casings was made by the CO to the party and on the same date a proposal was submitted to the Director [Finance] vide Ex.S.17, which was rejected by him. As such the contention of the CO that he had not made any proposal in this case, is untenable and unacceptable. As such the contention of the CO that he had not made any proposal in this case, is untenable and unacceptable. In case he was in disagreement with the contents of Ex.S.18 with regard to the proposal of 400 MT of scrap casings, he should not have submitted the proposal in Ex.S.17 which was in line with the proposal of the party in Ex.S.18. His plea that the charge is based on mere assumptions/ presumptions/surmises and without any evidence, is also not tenable, as there is sufficient documentary and oral evidence adduced during inquiry and as discussed above, to prove the charge against him. As such, the CO is blameworthy of proposing to sell the material of 400 MTs at the rate of Rs.1809/- PMT, a rate which was arrived at 6 years back, in total disregard of the laid down guidelines and procedure on tendering. The said proposal was subsequently used by the party in the Court against the interests of the Company, as may be seen from para 10 at page 5 of the writ petition [Ex.D.10]. This Article of charge is, therefore, held as ‘proved’ against the CO.” Article-II It is alleged that the CO alongwith other members of the committee submitted a proposal No. BEP/225 dated 02-02-99 seeking approval of the competent authority wherein he concealed vital facts and furnished misleading information for disposal of additional scrap of 400 MT and rock bits of earlier sale order. The said misleading note/proposal submitted to the corporate office, lead to erroneous approval of the note by the CMD. This was a motivated and willful attempt to cause undue favour to the party. It is evidenced from Ex.D.10 that OIL had filed a Counter Affidavit in the High Court, and the Court in its interim order directed that the tendering process may be continued but no final decision shall be taken and the materials in question shall not be shifted. All concerned in BEP including the CO were duty bound to follow and implement the said directions of the Court in letter and spirit. All concerned in BEP including the CO were duty bound to follow and implement the said directions of the Court in letter and spirit. However, instead of following the order of High Court and pursuing the court case further, the CO alongwith other officers submitted a proposal vide their note dated 02-02-1999 [Ex.S.20], inter alia, recommending calling of M/s ATS for price negotiations and settlement of court case on a mutual agreement in light of para (1) to (5) as mentioned on page 6 of Ex.S.20, in the best interest of the company. This proposal was approved by Director [E&D], Director [Finance] and CMD, as is evident from gage 1 of Ex.S.20. It has been alleged in the charge that this proposal was misleading on various grounds. The first ground is that the additional scrap of 400 MT declared on 20-05-1998 was not within the scope of the sale order dated 06-08-1993. This allegation of the prosecution is correct as 400 MT of scrap was declared much subsequently to the original sale order i.e. on 20-05-1998 [Ex.S.16]. This position has also been confirmed by SW-1 and SW-2 in their depositions. A fresh process of tendering should, therefore, have been followed in this case. The second ground is that the value of casing scrap was proposed at Rs.1809/- PMT, whereas the custom authorities assessed the rate @ Rs.6000/- PMT vide their order dated 20-01-2000 [Ex.S.24]. In this regard it is stated that in the original sale order dated 06-08-1993 [Ex.S.2], the rate mentioned for the casing scrap was Rs.1809/- PMT, although subsequently the custom authorities assessed the same at Rs.6000/- PMT. The correct procedure in this case, as already mentioned above, should have been fresh tendering and to sell the material to the highest bidder, at rates offered by him. But this procedure has not been followed by the CO and other officers. As such, they are blameworthy of proposing to sell the materials of 400 MTs at the rate of Rs.1809/- PMT, a rate which was arrived at 6 years back. The third ground is that although Paradip Port Trust (PPT) authorities requested OIL to vacate the area, but there was no mention of heavy penalty or stringent conditions. As such, they are blameworthy of proposing to sell the materials of 400 MTs at the rate of Rs.1809/- PMT, a rate which was arrived at 6 years back. The third ground is that although Paradip Port Trust (PPT) authorities requested OIL to vacate the area, but there was no mention of heavy penalty or stringent conditions. It is seen from Ex.D.21 that the PPT vide their letter dated 06-04-1998 asking the OIL to vacate the area near Singal Station which was under the zone of consideration of OIL zetty, before June, 1998 positively. They have also stated in para 2 of Ex.D.21 that this letter may be treated as ‘notice for vacation of plot’ under Port Rules. Regarding imposition of any penalty or stringent condition by PPT, this provision is available in Port Rules vide Ex.D.11. The CO and other officials, therefore, cannot be blamed on this account, The fourth ground is relating to loss on account of payment of ground rent and that even after so called amicable settlement, if took two years to get the customs clearance. As is seen from Ex.S.21, the amicable settlement was reached between M/s ATS and OIL on 19-02-1999; the sale order was placed on the party on 20-02-1999 [Ex.S.22]; and the BE was submitted on 07-10-1999, which was cleared by the customs authorities on 20-01-2000. As such the delay in this case is less than a year as against two years as claimed by the prosecution. Some delay can take place in the submission of the BE and customs clearance, but delay of 11 months is unjustified. The fifth ground mentioned is about time factor, which is also proved false in view of the fact that B/E for 300 MTs scrap out of 400 MTs was submitted on 07-10-99 vide B/E dated 20-01-2000 [Ex.S.28] i.e., after a lapse of about 8 months. It has further alleged that the tender committee concealed the facts of fetching less revenue to the tune of over Rs.8.5 lacs to the company, if the accepted tender rate of rock bits was reduced from Rs.55,009/- to the proposed Rs.1809/-PMT. It has further alleged that the tender committee concealed the facts of fetching less revenue to the tune of over Rs.8.5 lacs to the company, if the accepted tender rate of rock bits was reduced from Rs.55,009/- to the proposed Rs.1809/-PMT. Though other factors, which may cause loss to the company, if not agreed to out of court settlement were analyzed, yet the fact regarding fetching less revenue over Rs.8.5 lacs was neither mentioned nor highlighted in the proposal which could enable the CMD to take a pragmatic view of the loss involved. It is seen from the first page of the proposal [Ex.S.20] that it has been mentioned that OIL issued sale order dated 06-08-1993 [Ex.S.2], a copy of which was enclosed with the proposal as Annexure-I, and elaborated the constraints then faced by the BEP officials for selling the scrap rock bits. It has also been mentioned in Ex.S.20 that on the bid closing date i.e. 19-08-1998, no bid was received against the limited tenders, approval for which was taken vide Ex.D.6 [in the case of Sh. Kataky, co-accused]. From this, it is evidenced that by enclosing a copy of sale order dated 06-08-1993 the price of rock bits scrap at the rate of Rs.55009/-PMT was apparently known to the Director [E&D]/Director [Finance]/CMD. Further it has been specifically mentioned in para 6, page 3 of Ex.S.20 that price of previous sale order was Rs.55,009/-PMT. It was also known to them that the proposal to sell 16 MT rock bits in Ex.S.20 was only at Rs.1809/- PMT. As such, it is incorrect to say that facts about the previous price and the current price and resultant financial implications were concealed from the said officers. It has further been alleged that it was most unjustifying and detrimental to the interests of the company to cancel the earlier sale order and reduce the rate of rock bits to Rs.1809/- PMT, which benefited M/s ATS. This plea of the prosecution is correct as the party should have been asked to pay for 16 MTs of rock bits @ Rs.55009/- PMT as per the original order dated 06-08-1993 [Ex.S.2] and particularly when the bidder himself had agreed to lift the material at the said rates as confirmed vide letter dated 29-07-1998 [Ex.S.17]. As such, the CO and the other officers are blameworthy of not mentioning this fact in the proposal in Ex.S.20. As such, the CO and the other officers are blameworthy of not mentioning this fact in the proposal in Ex.S.20. Instead they have tried to compare the rates with the rates assessed by M/s Orissa Mining Corporation Limited @ Rs. 3000/- PMT which was incorrect. Comparing Paradip Price with that of Bangalore was also improper. The CO has contended that the charge against him is based on assumptions/presumptions/surmises and there is no evidence to prove the charge against him. The contention of the CO is untenable and unacceptable as there is sufficient evidence to prove the charge against him, to the extent as mentioned above, as contained in Ex.S.17, S.18 and Ex.S.20- which he has signed as Sr. Accounts Officer and Incharge [BEP], alongwith other officers. In view of the above analysis of evidence, this Article of charge is held as partly proved to the extent mentioned above.” 25. Coming back to the last contention of the petitioner that Chairman and Managing Director, OIL is neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority in his case and therefore the Chairman and Managing Director had no jurisdiction to impose the penalty, respondents have contended that the proceeding against the petitioner was a part of a common proceeding initiated against five officers including the petitioner. Since the other charged officers were of higher ranks, the Chairman and Managing Director had the jurisdiction to act as the disciplinary authority and to impose penalty. From a reading of the 1982 Rules, it is seen that Rule 29 thereof deals with common proceedings. It says that where two or more employees are concerned in a case, the authority competent to impose a major penalty on all such employees may make an order directing that disciplinary proceedings against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding and the specified authority may function as the disciplinary authority for the purpose of such common proceedings. From a reading of the introductory paragraph of the enquiry report dated 16-06-2007, it is seen that the Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Chairman and Managing Director, OIL vide Order No. CMD/OILO/1/1/1.4 dated 16-01-2006 for conducting departmental enquiry in common proceedings against the five officers including the petitioner. Mr. From a reading of the introductory paragraph of the enquiry report dated 16-06-2007, it is seen that the Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Chairman and Managing Director, OIL vide Order No. CMD/OILO/1/1/1.4 dated 16-01-2006 for conducting departmental enquiry in common proceedings against the five officers including the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of the order dated 16-01-2006 which discloses that the Chairman and Managing Director as the disciplinary authority decided to hold an enquiry under Rule 25 of the 1982 Rules against the five officers in common proceedings. Accordingly Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. 26. Therefore it is quite clear that a common proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and four other officers and by virtue of Rule 29 of the 1982 Rules, the Chairman and Managing Director acted as the disciplinary authority which necessitated the Board of Directors to be the appellate authority. There is thus no infirmity in the aforesaid arrangement. Therefore, this ground of challenge also cannot be accepted. 27. No other ground has been urged on behalf of the petitioner. 28. The decisions cited at the bar have been duly considered but having regard to the contextual facts of the case as noticed above, the said decisions are not applicable and do not provide any assistance to the petitioner. 29. Writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 30. No cost.