IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.475-476 OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.31376-31377 of 2008)

Nantu Ranjan Paul                      ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.        ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

These appeals are directed against the judgment of  

the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in F.M.A.  

No.481 of 2003 and F.M.A. No.482 of 2003 dated 17th June,  

2008.

The  brief  facts  which  are  necessary  in  these  two  

appeals are recapitulated as under:

The  appellant,  posted  as  Deputy  Manager  (Finance)  

under Durgapur Steel Plant and discharging function of an  

Assistant Manager (Finance) in relation to the miscellaneous  

work of Bill Section of Finance and Accounts Branch, was  

charged with the alleged misconduct of passing false bills.  

The Inquiry Officer on 31st March, 1993, found that the charge  

of lack of integrity and devotion to duty brought against the  

appellant was not proved.  However, the Inquiry Officer found  

that the charge pertaining to negligence of duty on the part  

of the appellant and also acting in the manner prejudicial  

to  the  interest  of the company was proved.    Based on the

....2/-

- 2 -

finding of the Inquiry Officer dated 31st March, 1993, in  

respect of the charges, the Disciplinary Authority directed  

the appellant to suffer reduction to a lower stage in a time  

scale.  Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before  

the Chairman (SAIL).

The  Additional  Chief  Vigilance  Officer,  Durgapur  

Steel Plant vide order dated 8th January, 1994, rejected the  

appeal.  The appellant assailed the order of the Disciplinary  

Authority dated 14th June, 1993, and rejection order dated 8th  

January, 1994, preferred Writ Petition No.5360 of 1994 in the  

High Court of Calcutta.

On 13th April, 1994, a similar charge was issued to  

the appellant for two bills almost for the same period, i.e.,  

1984 to 1987, namely, failed to maintain absolute integrity.  

The second Inquiry Officer found the appellant to be guilty  

of acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the  

company and failing to maintain devotion of duty but the  

appellant was, however, not found guilty to maintain absolute  

integrity  so  far  as  second  charge  is  concerned.   The  

Disciplinary  Authority  directed  the  appellant  to  suffer  

reduction  to  a  lower  post.   In  this  matter  also,  the  

appellant  preferred  an  appeal  before  the  Chairman  (SAIL),  

which was dismissed later on.

The  appellant  preferred  writ  petition  before  the  

Calcutta High Court being C.O. No.6493 of 1995.  Both the  

writ petitions were heard by the learned Single Judge and on  

9th October, 2002, these writ petitions were allowed holding  

the imposition of major penalty as illegal and the same was  

set aside.  The learned Single Judge further directed the  

respondents to give the appellant all service benefits of  

backwages as if no order of major penalty was imposed upon  

him.

....3/-

- 3 -

The respondents, being aggrieved by the judgment of  

the learned Single Judge, preferred two appeals before the  

Division Bench.  The Division Bench party allowed both F.M.A.  

No.481 of 2003 and F.M.A. No.482 of 2003 by directing:

(a) F.M.A. No.481 of 2003 was partly allowed by  directing  the  appellant's  C.O.  No.6493(W)  of  1995 to be heard afresh by the learned Single  Judge at the earliest; and (b)  F.M.A.  No.482  of  2003  was  partly  allowed  whereby the reduction in the scale of pay of the  appellant was maintained.  Only reduction with  cumulative effect was deleted.

The  appellant  preferred  these  appeals  by  way  of  

special leave petitions against the judgment of the Division  

Bench.

The Division Bench remitted the matter to the learned  

Single Judge to be heard afresh and according to the Division  

Bench, the learned Single Judge ought to have given separate  

judgment dealing with each and every issue raised by the  

parties.

We  find  no  serious  infirmity  with  the  impugned  

judgement of the Division Bench.  However, the appellant has  

been facing inquiry and Court proceedings for almost twenty  

five years and at this stage remitting the matter to the  

learned Single Judge would be very harsh to the appellant.

 On  consideration  of  the  totality  of  the  facts  and  

circumstances and in the interest of justice, we direct that,  

instead of withholding of two increments, three increments be  

withheld which should meet the ends of justice.  In that view  

of the matter, we set aside only that part of the judgement  

by which it has been remitted to the learned Single Judge.  

We  have  passed  this  order  primarily  to  avoid,  avoidable  

litigation  which may take several years before it is finally

....4/-

- 4 -

adjudicated. We, accordingly, put a quietus to the entire  

dispute after balancing the equities.

The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.

The parties to bear their own costs.

......................J.               [DALVEER BHANDARI]

......................J.               [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY]

New Delhi, January 19, 2010.