NIRANJAN MISHRA vs MINERAL EXPLORATION AND CONSULTANCY LIMITED on 30 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been served with the memorandum dated 29th June, 2026. The disciplinary authority is Surendra Singh Shatriya, respondent no.

5.

3. It is the grievance of the applicant that the applicant had made allegations against the respondent no. 5 vide letter dated 25th September, 2025 to the Director-Metal, Ministry of Mines. He submits that because of theses allegations, he apprehends that the respondent no. 5 has bias against the applicant. He also submits

Munarshi that because of these allegations, the applicant apprehends that the respondent no. 5 may take a decision having this bias in mind.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this letter was addressed to Ministry and the Ministry has not taken any action on this letter. He submits that the incident narrated in the letter dated 25th September, 2025 has no nexus with the charges levelled against the applicant. He submits that therefore, the apprehension of the applicant regarding bias is unfounded. If such types of allegations are entertained, it would open flood gate for all the like-minded persons and it will be difficult for the department to conduct the inquiry.

5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

6. The applicant has furnished typed copy of the complaint. In the complaint, the applicant has alleged as under:- “It is further placed on record that, during the course of the presentation, M/s Prudent Insurance Broker informed the Committee members that they had already been selected as the Insurance Broker of MECL. Such a disclosure was unexpected and came as a matter of serious astonishment to the Evaluation Committee.

Munarshi

In total marks out of 100, M/s Prudent Insurance Broker did not emerge as 1st in ranking. But D (F) insisted through GM-P&C (Mr. SK Das) to recommend M/S Prudent Insurance Broker for insurance broker of MECL. In response, committee has requested GM (P&C) & GM(HR) to inform officially for the revision but no such official intimation for the revision was received.

Further DF has threatened to all committee members in front of GM-HR, GM-P&C, & GM-Finance for transferring to project sites and destroy the careers of committee members and now after one and half months, today we have been issued the warning letter without finding any facts and faults.

It is requested to kindly intervene and safeguard the honest officers in the interest of organisation.”

7. From these allegations, it is clear that the applicant has made serious allegations against the DF. It is not disputed that the DF means respondent no. 5.

8. Learned counsel Shri Fidvi for the applicant has placed reliance on the case of National Bal Bhawan & Anr. Versus Khazan Chand & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 4216 of 2026 (Supreme Court), in which it is held thus:- “9. We have considered the matter from all angles in its entirety. The fact that there was a charge which was serious, did warrant a full-fledged disciplinary inquiry which has been done. However, now comes a stage where the inquiry report has to be taken to its further logical conclusion by the Disciplinary Authority by applying his or her independent mind and then either accept the inquiry report or differ with it, giving reasons and then communicating to the delinquent his

Munarshi or her views upon which a show cause is required to be asked for. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority has indicated that the charges were proved, whereas the fact was that only one of the two charges stood proved and on the other there was no clarity.

10. Be that as it may, even otherwise, with regard to the competence of the Disciplinary Authority, as there were serious doubts raised, and as a matter of fact, which is an admitted position, that she was the person against whom the respondent No.1 had sent the so- called forged letter and also had filed a writ petition, the allegation of the respondent No.3 carrying ill will against the respondent No.1 cannot be brushed aside.

11. We are reminded of the maxim that "justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done". In the present case, where already the respondent No.3 was at the receiving end of allegations made by the respondent No.1, the Authorities ought to have been mindful of not leaving anything for the respondent No.1 to be aggrieved of and most importantly, the person who was to take a final decision in the disciplinary proceeding, against whom already, he had expressed his lack of faith twice, first by sending a letter which though may have been fabricated as far as the other signatory is concerned, but as far as he was concerned, he did write the letter and later on, a writ petition was also filed before the High Court. It is not of much consequence, even if the writ petition was withdrawn for the reason that the levelling of serious charges against the respondent No.3 by the respondent No.1 was a fact which had already happened.”

9. The observations of the Supreme Court squarely apply to the facts of the case at hand. In para 10, Supreme Court has observed that ‘with regard to the competence of the Disciplinary Authority, as there were serious doubts raised, and as a matter of fact, which is an admitted position, that she was the person against whom the

Munarshi respondent No.1 had sent the so-called forged letter and also had filed a writ petition, the allegation of the respondent No.3 carrying ill will against the respondent no. 1 cannot be brushed aside.’

10. In the case at hand also, the applicant has made serious allegations of threatening the applicant by respondent no. 5, disciplinary authority of ruining his career. The applicant has made complaints against the disciplinary authority to the Ministry and the Ministry had not taken any action on it. Therefore, the respondent no. 5 carrying bias against the applicant cannot be ruled out.

11. So far as the contention of Shri Deopujari, learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, the question is not whether there is any nexus between the allegations made by the applicant against the disciplinary authority and the charges levelled against him. The question is whether there is likelihood of respondent no. 5 nurturing ill will against the applicant. As indicated earlier, the possibility cannot be brushed aside. In these circumstances and as held by the Supreme Court that the justice should not only be done but should also seen to be done, we find that having regard to the

Munarshi allegations made by the applicant against respondent no. 5, it will be in the fitness of things if any other officer of equal rank is appointed as Disciplinary Authority by the respondents.

12. In this view of the matter, we find that rest of the prayers are not germane at this stage. Therefore, we do not find any justification to go into those prayers. In this view of the matter, application is partly allowed. The Order dated 12th August, 2026 (Annexure- A-3) is set aside. The respondents are directed to appoint any other officer of equal rank of Director Finance as a Disciplinary Authority.

13. Needless to say that the Inquiry Officer can proceed with the inquiry.

14. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. No costs.

(Sangam Narain Srivastava) (Justice M.G. Sewlikar) Member(A)

Member (J)

nk.

Munarshi