IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1717 of 2008 Gauri Shankar Singh, son of late Sita Ram Singh, resident of Flat no.A-101, NTPC Vihar, Phase-I, Ashiana Nagar, Patna, District- Patna. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Chairman and Managing Director, National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., NTPC Bhawan, Core-7, Scope Complex, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 2. The Executive Director, (Human Resources), Corporate Centre, National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., NTPC Bhawan, Core-7, Scope Complex, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 3. The Executive Director, Eastern Regional Head Quarter, National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., 2nd Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001. ........ Respondents. ----------- 03- 17.10.2008 This matter was called out yesterday, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and it was adjourned for today to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to be present. None appears on behalf of the petitioner today also. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents was present yesterday and has assisted us today also. 2 This writ petition arises out of a disciplinary proceeding undertaken by the respondent Corporation, namely, National Thermal Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 2 ‘Corporation’), which led to the impugned order of punishment against the petitioner. He was posted as Deputy General Manager (Operation and Maintenance) at the Kahalgaon Project of the respondent Corporation and has been inflicted the punishment of deprivation of promotion for a period of two years. 3. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned action. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was at the relevant point of time posted as Deputy General Manager (Operation and Maintenance), at the Kahalgaon project, District Bhagalpur, of the respondent-Corporation. Charge-sheet dated 18.12.2003 (Annexure-3) was served on him, wherein allegations were levelled against him that he had approved of purchase of certain items for civil construction at higher rates on single tender for the cumulative value of Rs.11,98,193/-, without allowing competition with respect to items which were not proprietary items and were being produced by several other manufacturers. It is further stated that by such action the 3 petitioner had caused a loss of Rs.2,64,375/- to the Corporation due to procurement of Belzona 429: Magma seal on PAC basis. The charge-sheet further alleged that the petitioner had also caused loss to the Corporation of another sum of Rs.4,30,438/- on account of procurement of Belzona Magma seal on PÁC basis. The total amount of losses allegedly were to the tune of Rs.6,94,813/-. The petitioner had shown cause by his communication dated 17.3.2004 (Annexure-4), wherein it was stated that he acted on the advice of his subordinates and on the recommendation of the Engineer-In-Charge. He further stated that he is not an expert in the matter and his subordinates perhaps betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in them. On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned disciplinary authority recorded the finding that the petitioner had accorded sanction for the contracts in question on the recommendation of the Engineer-In-Charge does not leave him of his own responsibilities. He has further held that purchase of the items on single tender basis was motivated, the products were available at lower costs in the market, and were not proprietary items. In view of these findings, the learned 4 disciplinary authority awarded the penalty of withholding promotion for two years. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred appeal which was considered and rejected by the Board of Directors by its detailed order dated 27.4.2006 (Annexure-7). The petitioner thereafter preferred a review application which has remained indisposed because, according to the Corporation, such a review application is not maintainable. 5. Law is well settled that this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction does not exercise appellate powers. The powers of judicial review are narrow and the constraints are well- known. This Court has to satisfy itself that charges were served on the delinquent official, he was afforded reasonable opportunity to present his case, the principles of natural justice were observed, the prescribed procedure was followed, and the punishment meted out to him is not disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charges. It appears to me that a clear charge- sheet was served on the petitioner who had submitted an exhaustive show-cause after inspection and perusal of the relevant documents. The same were duly considered by the learned disciplinary authority and disposed of by a 5 reasoned order. The principles of natural justice were observed and the prescribed procedure has been followed. It is relevant to state that it is a case of minor punishment and, therefore, detailed procedure was not required to be followed. It further appears to us that the punishment meted out to the petitioner is not at all disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charges. It would bear repetition to state that the learned disciplinary authority has found that purchase of the items on single tender basis was motivated. The Board of Directors disposed of the appeal by a detailed and a reasoned order. I do not find any ground for interference. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/