Jharkhand High Court refuses to let Bokaro Steel plant officer go ‘scot-free’ despite procedural error

The bench modified the tribunal’s order. (Image enhanced using AI)

While modifying the tribunal’s order to ensure the case is remanded for a fresh decision, the court emphasised that when a displinary proceedings are initiated, they must be allowed to reach their conclusive end through proper legal channels rather than being terminated prematurely due to a technical error.

Case of alleged misconduct and punishment

The matter involved Dhananjay Kumar, a general manager at the Bokaro Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). In January 2023, Kumar was served with a charge memorandum containing five articles of misconduct under Rule 25 of the SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977, including over-reporting work, negligence in dumping slag, and failure to prevent pilferage.

Following an internal inquiry, the Inquiry Office (IO) concluded that four of the five charges were not established and the fifth was partially established. Despite these findings, the Displinary Authority (DA) proceeded to reduce the pay scale for a period of three years and three months. The appellate authority upheld this order in February 2024.

Kumar moved the tribunal, which quashed the punishment on May 9, 2025, on the grounds that the DA had failed to issue a “disagreement notice”, a mandatory

procedural requirement when an authority differs from an IO’s favorable findings. The tribunal ordered the immediate restoration of Kumar’s pay and the release of arrears. SAIL challenged this before the High Court.

Arguments of parties

Appearing for the respondent, advocate Bhanu Kumar submitted that the memo of charge is of the year 2023, and since then, two years have already lapsed, and, as such, if the matter is remitted before the disciplinary authority, it will be prejudicial to the interest of the applicant.

The petitioner- SAIL, represented by advocate Indrajit Sinha, argued that even if the procedure was flawed, the tribunal should have remitted the case back to the DA to follow the correct legal process rather than allowing the employee to go “scot-free” on a technicality.

Court’s findings

The bench observed that the Supreme Court had well settled the law regarding disagreement notices in the Punjab National Bank v Kunj Behari Mishra case.

The court noted that principles of natural justice require an authority to communicate its tentative reasons for disagreeing with an inquiry report to a delinquent employee before recording a final finding.

It added that the law is well settled that no one can be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong, as also the proposition of law that, on a technicality, no one can be allowed to take advantage.

However, the bench highlighted that the tribunal erred by failing to consider the issue of remand. Citing A Masilamani v LIC, the court reiterated that once a punishment is set aside due to a procedural deficiency in the inquiry, the court must typically remit the case to the stage where the vitiation occurred.

Other cases of disciplinary actions

• The Orissa High Court has dismissed the plea of a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) head constable and upheld a disciplinary order that reduced his pay following a security breach at the Rourkela Steel Plant (RSP).
• Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy was dealing with the plea of a head constable challenging the punishment order passed against him.
• “The court is unable to accept the contention raised by the petitioner that he was prejudiced due to the non-supply of the CCTV footage of the incident,” the court said on March 6.
• The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a plea by the central government and the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and upheld a single judge’s order to quash the removal of a constable from service in connection with a 1999 theft incident at Bokaro Steel Plant.
• “The petitioner is a member of the disciplined Force expected to be diligent and attentive in his duty, and such negligence was not expected from a member of the Force, but at the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that there is nothing on record to suggest that the service career of the petitioner was not impeccable before his removal,” the court said on February 17.