Financial transactions without proof of quid pro quo cannot be characterized as illegal gratification.

The Petitioner, a Senior Manager at NTPC, was removed from service on September 23, 2022, following a departmental inquiry

The proceedings stemmed from a 2020 complaint alleging he received illegal gratification from M/s Rife Solutions

While the CBI investigated and found the transactions were repayments of a "friendly loan" advanced by the Petitioner rather than bribes, NTPC proceeded with a departmental inquiry

The Inquiry Authority (IA) concluded that although direct bribery was not established, the Petitioner's financial associations and failure to report his wife's business (3A Enterprises) amounted to misconduct

The Disciplinary Authority invoked a mandatory penalty proviso for "illegal gratification," resulting in the Petitioner's removal

The Petitioner challenged the removal and subsequent rejection of his appeal and review

1. Whether the material before the Inquiry Authority could reasonably sustain the finding that receipts from M/s Rife Solutions constituted illegal gratification

2. Whether the findings of misconduct under CDA Rules 13(2), 14, and 16(2) are sustainable

3. Whether the Inquiry Authority could find the Petitioner guilty of "lending" when the charge specifically alleged "borrowing"

4. Whether the penalty of removal is sustainable if the gratification charge fails but other misconduct remains proved

The court applied the "preponderance of probabilities" standard for departmental inquiries, noting that while technical rules of the Evidence Act do not apply, findings must not be based on conjectures

Rule 14 of the CDA Rules, which prohibits lending/borrowing with persons having official dealings

Rule 16(2), which requires prior sanction for property transactions with such persons

Rule 13(2) mandates reporting family-run businesses

Regarding judicial review, the court followed Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, limiting interference to cases of perversity or no evidence

Bidyabhushan Mohapatra principle regarding the survival of punishment when some charges fail

The Court found the charge of "illegal gratification" was based on "conjecture placed upon conjecture"

The IA failed to account for the fact that the Petitioner had first advanced money to Kunal Rai; thus, the inward credits were more likely repayments than bribes

There was no evidence of a quid pro quo or official favour linked to the payments

The Court upheld the findings on Rules 13(2), 14, and 16(2), as the Petitioner admitted to lending money to a contractor and failing to report his wife's firm

The Court justified the shift from "borrowing" to "lending" under Rule 25(19) because the Petitioner had full notice and had built his defense around the lending narrative

Crucially, the Court held that since the Disciplinary Authority chose the harshest penalty based on a "mandatory" proviso for bribery (which failed), the penalty process was fatally flawed

It affirmed the findings on Rules 13(2), 14, and 16(2) regarding unauthorized lending and non-disclosure

The orders of removal, appeal, and review were quashed

The Court ordered the reinstatement of the Petitioner within four weeks and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh, reasoned order on penalty within twelve weeks, specifically excluding any assumption of bribery

Back wages and benefits are to be determined based on the outcome of the fresh penalty order