Shiv Shanker Vyas v. NTPC Limited & Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Judicial review of PSU disciplinary inquiry; preponderance of probabilities versus legal proof; suspicion cannot replace proof; illegal gratification requires nexus with official act (demand/quid pro quo/payer testimony); documentary evidence without management witnesses; Rule 14 CDA lending/borrowing/'friendly loan' pecuniary obligation; Rule 16(2) prior sanction for property transactions with firms having official dealings; Rule 13(2) disclosure of family business; Rule 25(19) finding on altered article without prejudice; Rule 23 first proviso mandatory removal for gratification; State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra surviving-charge rule; B.C. Chaturvedi reconsideration of penalty rather than judicial substitution; adequacy of appellate/review reasons; reinstatement and back wages; NTPC CDA Rules 1977; CBI self-contained note not binding but relevant.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition partly allowed: Inquiry Report dated 18.08.2022 set aside qua receipt of illegal gratification and misconduct under Rules 5(2) and 5(17) CDA; findings on Rules 13(2), 14 and 16(2) affirmed with clarification that 'borrowing' was not proved and the established transaction was lending by the Petitioner to Kunal Rai; findings under Rules 4(1)(i), 4(1)(iii) and 5(5) sustained only to the extent of paragraph 104(vii); penalty order dated 23.09.2022, appellate order dated 18.11.2022 and reviewing order dated 27.10.2023 set aside; matter remitted to the competent Disciplinary Authority for a fresh, reasoned decision on penalty within twelve weeks, after affording the Petitioner representation confined to penalty and without any presumption of gratification or moral-turpitude offence; Petitioner to be reinstated within four weeks, subject to permissible interim orders under the CDA Rules; back wages/consequential benefits not automatic and to be determined with the fresh penalty order.