“The revisional authority has held that the important findings incidental to the inquiry had been considered while deciding the extent of penalty to be imposed upon the applicant. In fact as the same goes to the root of the issue to pin point the person who was actually responsible for the loss to the exchequer, the same ought to have been considered a stage earlier, as to whether the applicant was responsible for the loss. A look at the sequence of events at this stage would also be appropriate (it is made clear that by referring to the same, no re-appreciation of evidence can be said to have taken place). Note dated 20th November, 1992 was prepared by officiating ASW who, after giving the comparative figures of various tenderers, refers to the lowest quotation as 14.79 lakhs plus and also states that the 'cost indicated in the tender is Rs 15 lakhs'. This note was put up to the CWE who was in the know of things right from the tendering for both fixtures as well as Accessories, for both of which, the cost of tender was RS. 15 lakhs. This is the main mistake and the same was not located by CWE. The SO (MGTOC) who was also equally in the scene right from the beginning also did not bother to look into the same and on the basis of the revised quotation, without calling for the previous quotation approved the technical violability and also the rate, vide order dated 26th November, 1992. Had the file been further processed within a reasonable time of say a week, by first week of December, 1992,
