Disciplinary Authority must provide disagreement notice before punishing exonerated employees; procedural flaws necessitate remand.

Respondent No. 1, a General Manager at Bokaro Steel Plant, was served a charge memorandum on January 10, 2023, alleging five counts of misconduct, including negligence and failure to control over-reporting by a contractor

The Inquiry Officer (IO) submitted a report on July 26, 2023, finding that Articles I to IV were not established and Article V was only partially established

On December 14, 2023, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) imposed a punishment of reduction in pay by one stage for three years and three months without cumulative effect

Crucially, the DA did not issue a disagreement notice regarding the charges the IO found unproved

After the Appellate Authority rejected his appeal, Respondent No. 1 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the punishment orders and directed the restoration of pay and arrears

The Petitioner (SAIL) challenged this before the High Court, specifically arguing that the Tribunal erred by not remitting the matter for a fresh decision

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority is required to record a disagreement note and provide an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee when it differs from the Inquiry Officer’s findings of exoneration.

2. Whether the Tribunal, upon finding a procedural lapse in a disciplinary proceeding, should remit the matter to the authority for fresh consideration instead of quashing the proceedings entirely.

SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977

Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Mishra (1998), which mandates that if a Disciplinary Authority disagrees with an Inquiry Officer’s favorable findings, it must record tentative reasons for disagreement and provide the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before recording final findings

A. Masilamani v. LIC (2013) and Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tiwari (2017), establishing that when an inquiry is found procedurally deficient, the proper course is to remit the case to the disciplinary authority to resume from the point of vitiation, unless a long time-lag makes it unfair

Scope of judicial review under Article 226 as defined in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

The High Court observed that the DA failed to follow the settled law in Kunj Behari Mishra by imposing a penalty without first serving a disagreement notice on the charges for which the Respondent was exonerated

While the Tribunal correctly identified this procedural error, the Court found the Tribunal’s decision to quash the punishment without remanding the matter to be "perverse" and an "error apparent on the face of the record"

The Court distinguished this case from those where remand is denied due to long delays; here, the proceedings began in 2023 and the Respondent is still in service

Applying A. Masilamani, the Court reasoned that a delinquent employee should not be allowed to escape an inquiry on a mere technicality when the procedural error can be rectified by remitting the matter to the stage where the vitiation occurred

It held that while the original punishment order was procedurally flawed, the matter must be remanded

The Court directed the Disciplinary Authority to issue a disagreement notice to Respondent No. 1 within three weeks

Respondent No. 1 is to submit an explanation within two weeks thereafter, and the DA must pass a fresh order within six weeks of receiving said explanation

Any consequential benefits for the Respondent will depend on the final outcome of this fresh decision