Jharkhand High Court news: While upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that set aside the disciplinary action by Steel Authority of India (SAIL) to lower the pay scale of a general manager at the Bokaro Steel Plant over allegations of misconduct, the Jharkhand High Court has modified the tribunal’s order and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority.A division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Deepak Roshan was hearing a plea of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) challenging the tribunal order that set aside the order of the disciplinary authority.“If the disciplinary proceeding is being started, then it is to be given a conclusive end. It is equally settled that, if disciplinary authority is proceeding to initiate departmental proceedings, then the same must be concluded in accordance with the law,” the court said on April 6. The bench modified the tribunal’s order. (Image enhanced using AI)Also Read | Security breach at Rourkela Steel Plant: Why Orissa High Court refused to save CISF constable who let ‘vehicles slip in’While modifying the tribunal’s order to ensure the case is remanded for a fresh decision, the court emphasised that when a displinary proceedings are initiated, they must be allowed to reach their conclusive end through proper legal channels rather than being terminated prematurely due to a technical error.Case of alleged misconduct and punishmentThe matter involved Dhananjay Kumar, a general manager at the Bokaro Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). In January 2023, Kumar was served with a charge memorandum containing five articles of misconduct under Rule 25 of the SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977, including over-reporting work, negligence in dumping slag, and failure to prevent pilferage.Following an internal inquiry, the Inquiry Office (IO) concluded that four of the five charges were not established and the fifth was partially established. Despite these findings, the Displinary Authority (DA) proceeded to punish a reduction in pay scale for a period of three years and three months. The appellate authority upheld this order in February 2024.Also Read | Punjab and Haryana High court saves widow’s pension: Why 27 years of service overruled cop’s dismissal for absenceKumar moved the tribunal, which quashed the punishment on May 9, 2025, on the grounds that the DA had failed to issue a “disagreement notice”, a mandatoryStory continues below this adprocedural requirement when an authority differs from an IO’s favorable findings. The tribunal ordered the immediate restoration of Kumar’s pay and the release of arrears. SAIL challenged this before the High Court.Arguments of partiesAppearing for the respondent, advocate Bhanu Kumar submitted that the memo of charge is of the year 2023, and since then, two years have already lapsed, and, as such, if the matter is remitted before the disciplinary authority, it will be prejudicial to the interest of the applicant.The petitioner- SAIL, represented by advocate Indrajit Sinha, argued that even if the procedure was flawed, the tribunal should have remitted the case back to the DA to follow the correct legal process rather than allowing the employee to go “scot-free” on a technicality.Court’s findingsThe bench observed that the law regarding disagreement notices is well settled by the Supreme Court in the Punjab National Bank v Kunj Behari Mishra case.Story continues below this adThe court noted that principles of natural justice require an authority to communicate its tentative reasons for disagreeing with an inquiry report to a delinquent employee before recording a final finding.It added that the law is well settled that no one can be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong, as also the proposition of law that, on a technicality, no one can be allowed to take advantage.Also Read | 27 years after Bokaro Steel Plant theft, Jharkhand High Court steps in to save CISF constable from ‘harsh’ punishmentHowever, the bench highlighted that the tribunal erred by not considering the issue of remand. Citing A Masilamani v LIC, the court reiterated that once a punishment is set aside due to a procedural deficiency in the inquiry, the court must typically remit the case to the stage where the vitiation occurred.