Alleging bribery against superiors is not misconduct under standing orders prohibiting baseless accusations.

The petitioner, an Accountant appointed in 1976, was transferred six times between 2006 and 2014 despite suffering from significant health issues and undergoing three major surgeries.

Following a transfer order dated 28.07.2014, the petitioner alleged that two senior finance managers demanded a bribe of ₹1.50 lakh to cancel his transfer.

The petitioner filed complaints with the Chief Vigilance Officer and the District Collector.

Southeastern Coalfields Ltd. (SECL) constituted an enquiry committee which found the allegations unsubstantiated due to lack of proof and recommended disciplinary action against the petitioner.

Consequently, a charge sheet was issued on 09.01.2015, and the petitioner was removed from service on 20.08.2015—just 1.5 years prior to his superannuation—under Clauses 26.16, 26.22, and 26.40 of the Certified Standing Orders.

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) subsequently upheld the removal, leading to this petition.

1. Whether making a complaint regarding a demand for bribery against superior officers constitutes "major misconduct" under Clause 26.16 of the Certified Standing Orders

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent removal order were vitiated by institutional bias and the "dictate" of higher management

3. Whether the punishment of removal, after 39 years of service and shortly before retirement, was disproportionate and draconian

The court examined Clauses 26.16, 26.22, and 26.40 of the SECL Certified Standing Orders, which define misconduct as making baseless accusations against superiors or spreading false information.

It invoked the constitutional and statutory principles of transparency, probity, and accountability in public employment, noting that such values are protected under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013, the Central Vigilance Commission Act 2003, and the M.P. Lokayukta Evam Up-Lokayukta Adhiniyam 1981.

The court further applied the doctrine of natural justice, specifically regarding "organisational bias," where an investigating body also directs the initiation of punishment.

The court held that Clause 26.16 cannot be interpreted to penalize whistleblowers reporting corruption, as doing so would provide management a tool to insulate themselves from accountability.

It reasoned that proving a bribe demand is inherently difficult and the mere inability of a complainant to provide recordings or independent proof does not render an accusation "malicious".

Upon reviewing the record, the court found clear evidence of institutional bias: the General Manager who headed the committee investigating the petitioner’s complaint was the same authority who issued a "dictate" on the note sheet to initiate disciplinary action.

The removal order was subsequently signed by a subordinate Sub-area Manager acting under this mandate.

The court characterized the action as "shooting a fly with a sledgehammer," concluding that SECL intended to create a "terror" among employees to scuttle future complaints of corruption.

The court held that the allegations did not amount to misconduct and the proceedings were a "brutal, shameless and disgraceful show of organisational bias".

The court ordered SECL to: (i) settle all retirement benefits within 60 days; (ii) pay 100% backwages until the date of superannuation; (iii) pay 10% per annum interest on retiral benefits (increasing to 12% if delayed beyond 60 days); and (iv) pay litigation costs of ₹2,00,000.