Rakesh Ranjan vs National Mineral Development Corporation Limited

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83018
1 WA-2650-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 9 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 2650 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010530292026
RAKESH RANJAN
Versus
NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Utkarsh Kumar Sonkar, learned Advocate for the appellant.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
In the present writ appeal challenge is to the order dated 27.4.2026
passed in Writ Petition No.9064/2022 [Rakesh Ranjan Vs. National Mineral
Development Corporation Limited and others] whereby the writ court has
dismissed the writ petition assailing the order of punishment dated 13.3.2018
(Annexure-P/1).
Facts of the case, in short, are as under:-
2. The respondent No.1-National Mineral Development Corporation
Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "NMDC") issued an employment
notification initiating Special Recruitment Drive for the persons with
disabilities for 03 posts of Misc.Attendant (Trainee) and Dimond Mining
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83018
2 WA-2650-2026
Project (DMP), Panna. The cut-off date for submissions of applications was

18.10.2015. The appellant/writ petitioner was transferred from Kirandul
(CG) to Panna. He reported to duty on 19.10.2015 at Panna and assumed the
charge of Head of Department (HOD) on 06.11.2015. All 626 applications
were scrutinized between 09.1.2016 to 15.1.2016 by the Scrutiny Committee
of 03 members, of which, appellant was not the member. The appellant
visited Hyderabad on an official tour between 27.2.2016 to 04.3.2016 to
attend a specialized training programme for coordinating pending approvals
of residential bus deployment at Panna, which was scheduled on 29.2.2016.
After conclusion of training the DGM (Personnel), Head Office handed over
a sealed envelope containing password protected pen drive to the appellant
with instructions to personally deliver the same to the Project Manager,
DMP, Panna. Upon return to Panna on 02.3.2016, the appellant immediately
handed over the intact sealed envelope to the Project Manager, DMP, Panna.
On 05.3.2016, the sealed envelope was opened in supervision of Project
Manager. The password to decrypt the Pen Drive was obtained directly over
telephone by the Project Manager from the Head Office. Upon opening of
file before the Printing Committee it was revealed that Head Office
inadvertently embedded "Answer key" on page immediately following
question paper. One hard copy of entire document was printed and the
answer key was detached as also sealed in separate envelope and soft copy in
pen drive was permanently erased. The sealed Answer Key was deposited
with CISF Guarded strong room. On 06.3.2016, the written test was
conducted.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83018
3 WA-2650-2026
3. The appellant was neither a member of the Written Test

Committee nor that of Answer Sheet Evaluation Committee. The evaluation
was made by a 09 members Committee headed by DGM (Mechanical) on
06.3.2016. Upon nomination by the Project Manager the appellant acted as a
Member of 06 members Skill Test Conducting Committee.
4. Amongst the qualified persons in written test there was one
Kismat Singh who happened to be son of appellant's estranged sister. On
30.8.2016 the appellant was served with Memorandum of Charges alleging
that he failed to disclose his relationship with Kismat Singh and had actively
participated in receiving the examination pen drive & exhibited negligence
in application scrutiny. The appellant submitted written statement of defence
on 23.9.2016 stating Kismat Singh does not fall within the definition of
"relative" under NMDC Rules. A departmental enquiry was conducted. As
averred, prosecution did not examine any witness, whereas appellant
examined member of Key Selection Committee. On 30.8.2017, the Inquiry
Officer submitted report recording a finding that Kismat Singh is not the
relative of appellant. He also found that appellant was not obligated to inform
the Management about his nephew being aspirant candidate for the post in
question. Hence, appellant is not guilty of charges under Rule 6.0, 6(1) &
6(3) of the aforesaid Rules.
5. The Inquiry Officer though exonerated the appellant of the charge
of nepotism under Rule 6 of the Rules but passed an order dated 13.3.2018
(Annexure-P/1) imposing major penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the
Time Scale of Pay for a period of 05 years without increments of pay during
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83018
4 WA-2650-2026
the period and it will have the effect of postponing the future increment of

pay under Rule 23.1 of the NMDC CDA Rules. The appellant preferred
statutory appeal which was rejected on 08.2.2022.
6. The appellant filed W.P.No.9064/2022 before learned writ court
challenging the punishment order and appellate order. The respondents raised
an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction as order was passed at
Hyderabad. Learned Single Judge rejected the objection of territorial
jurisdiction as part of cause of action i.e. enquiry was conducted in Panna.
The learned writ court having observed that Kismat Singh being nephew was
related by blood i.e. sister's son, therefore, it cannot be said that he is not a
relative, thereby did not find any error in the order of punishment and
accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the learned writ
court has failed to see that the appellant was exonerated of the charge under
Rule 6 by the departmental authority inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer in the
inquiry report dated 30.8.2017 unequivocally held that the appellant is not
guilty of the charge under Rules 6.0, 6(1) & 6(3) as nephew does not fall
within the definition of term "relative" and hence, appellant was under an
obligation to report his candidature to the Management. The Disciplinary
Authority has not issued any statutory note of disagreement under Rule 26 of
the NMDC (CDA) Rules, 1978. The respondent/Corporation has not
challenged the exoneration of the appellant before the appellate authority and
hence, such finding under Rule 6 has attained finality. It is further argued that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83018
5 WA-2650-2026
it is trite law that the High Court cannot subrogate itself into the shoes of the

employer or act as an appellate prosecution authority to suo motu resurrect a
charge, reverse an unassailed departmental acquittal and penalise on a
ground from which he stood formally discharged in the matter.
8. It is also put forth by the learned counsel for appellant that learned
writ court erred in making statutory interpretation of words of Clause 6.1
("related, whether by blood or marriage"). Section 6 of the Companies Act
read with Schedule 1A & Rule 4 of the Companies (Specification of
Definition Details) Rules, 2014 provide closed list of legal relatives. The
sister, sister's husband and sister's son are conspicuously and deliberately
excluded by the Legislature from the statutory definition of the term
"relative". The appellant had filed an affidavit of his sister dated 12.10.2015
stating that the relationship with the appellant had been severed over a
decade preceding recruitment. The appellant had no knowledge that his
sister's son, who is residing in remote village of Buxar (Bihar) had applied
for the Group-D trainee post at Panna. The appellant awarded only 15 out of
a total 25 marks to Kismat Singh, whereas the other members nominated by
the State Government gave him higher marks. Additionally, it is also
submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that punishment imposed is
shockingly disproportionate in view of the gravity of unproved charges.
9. In support of his above contentions, learned counsel has placed
reliance on the decisions in the cases of Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India,
(1987) 4 SCC 611, Union of India Vs. G.Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463,
Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, State of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83018
6 WA-2650-2026
U.P. vs. Mohd.Sharif, (1982) 2 SCC 376. He prayed for setting aside of the

impugned order of the learned writ court as also the order imposing
punishment (Ann.P/1).
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
Appreciation and conclusion:
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that sister's son
does not come under the definition of relative. Therefore, the appellant has
wrongly been charge-sheeted and punished in the departmental enquiry. It is
also submitted that he was not found guilty under Rules 6.0, 6 (1) & 6(3) as
the nephew (sister's son) does not fall within the statutory definition of the
term "relative"; therefore, the appellant was not under the legal obligation to
report his candidature to the Management. Therefore, in view of the inquiry
report, which has been accepted as it is, without recording any disagreement
under Rule 26 of NMDC (CDA) Rules, the punishment ought not to have
been imposed upon the appellant. It is also stated that the appellant was
included in the Skill Test Committee on 26.3.2016 by the Project Manager
(Appointing Authority) and the appellant discharged his official duty in
accordance with law. He never demanded any induction as one of the
members in any Committee. The appellant awarded only 15 out of 25 marks
to his nephew, i.e. 60%, whereas other independent committee members
have awarded significantly higher marks.
12. We are not inclined to accept the above arguments as the
appellant is not disputing the relationship with the candidate (Kismat Singh).
Therefore, even though he does not come under the definition of relative, he
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83018
7 WA-2650-2026
happened to be the sister's son of the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant

should not have become a member of the Skill Test Committee. He should
have walked out or should have disclosed the relationship to the Project
Manager/Appointing Authority. The appellant suppressed, interviewed his
own nephew and awarded the marks. No case for interference is warranted
by this Court.
1 3 . In the case of Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran reported in
(2015) 2 SCC 610, the Apex Court outlined strict parameters where the High
Court under Articles 226/227 can and cannot interfere with the findings in
departmental inquiries reviewed by Tribunals. The High Court cannot re-
appreciate evidence or interfere on the ground that another view is possible,
or cannot go into the adequacy or reliability of evidence or act as an
appellate authority on proportionality of punishment, unless it shocks the
conscience of the court.
14. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao (AIR
1963 SC 1723) and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749,
the Supreme Court of India held that in service jurisprudence, judicial review
is directed not against the decision itself, but against the decision-making
process. The Tribunal and the Court cannot substitute their assessment of
evidence for that of the disciplinary authority unless perversity or mala fides
are established.
15. In the case of Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan reported in
AIR 1964 SC 477, the Apex Court held that an error of fact, no matter how
grave it may appear, cannot be corrected under supervisory/certiorari
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83018
8 WA-2650-2026
jurisdiction unless it is an error of law apparent on the face of the record

(e.g., ignoring statutory provisions or basing conclusions on inadmissible
evidence).
16. In Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) 4 SCC 181, the
Apex Court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is
exercised sparingly and cautiously, only to rectify gross errors that would
result in grave injustice, and not to set right every legal or factual error.
17. Apart from the above, the scope of interference with the order
passed by the Writ Court is very limited. The Apex Court, in the case of
Management of Narendra and Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Workmen
of Narendra and Co. reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340, reiterated that unless the
judgment of the Single Judge is perverse or demonstrably wrong, the
Appellate Bench should not substitute its opinion for that of the Single
Judge. In the case of Wander Ltd. Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd ., reported in
1990 SCC (SUPP) 727, the Supreme Court of India also established that the
Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court
of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion
has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or
perversely.
18. In the result, we do not find any error in the impugned order of
the learned writ court. The writ appeal being sans substance stands
dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
JUDGE
RM

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12