1 CGHC010232612026 2026:CGHC:33145-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 639 of 2026 Akshay Kumar Sharma S/o Shri M.R. Sharma Aged About 59 Years R/o H. No. 15 D, Cross Street- 1, Sector- 1, Bhilai, District Durg, C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Through Its Managing Director, Fsnl Bhawan, Equipment Chowk, Central Avenue, Bhilai Central Avenue, P.B. No. 37, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy General Manager Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Fsnl Bhawan, Equipment Chowk, Central Avenue, Bhilai Central Avenue, P.B. No. 37, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Asst. General Manager Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Fsnl Bhawan, Equipment Chowk, Central Avenue, Bhilai Central Avenue, P.B. No. 37, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aishwarya Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.08.01 13:20:43 +0530 2 31.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Aishwarya Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents on I.A. No. 02/2026 i.e., an application for condonation of delay of 01 day in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.02/2026 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “In view of the facts and grounds as mentioned in foregoing paragraphs, the Appellant most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for entire records of the case and be further pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 27/04/2026 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench in WPL No.150/2025 ANNEXURE A-1, in the interest of justice and grant all the reliefs as sought by the petitioner in the writ petition by quashing the impugned orders assailed in the Writ Petition and by directing the respondents to grant all the consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner along with appropriate interests thereon, in the interest of justice. That Alternatively, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to reduce the punishment inflicted 3 upon the petitioner, in the interest of justice. This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other order(s) or direction(s), as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the appellant against the respondents under the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in the interest of justice.” 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPL No. 150/2025 (Akshay Kumar Sharma Vs. Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited and Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein has been dismissed 5. The brief facts projected before the learned Single Judge were that the petitioner was working under respondent-management since 1991 on the post of Senior Lancer/ Gas Cutter -I and he was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.12.2017. It was alleged that on 12.12.2017, writ petitioner was found unauthorisedly absent from his workplace NSB Yard at 8:15 pm during surprise inspection and he only arrived later in drunken state and was not in position to work. Further, he did not report for medical examination as directed and left his workplace before time without any reason or authorization. Departmental inquiry was contemplated according to the standing orders and article of charges was issued leveling allegations against the writ petition as follows: 4 (i) Dishonesty in connection with company's business. (ii) Drunkenness in the work premises. (iii) Disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of the superiors. (iv) Breach of standing orders. 6. Respondent-management appointed Inquiry Presenting Officer. Respondent-management examined its witnesses. Writ petitioner participated in the inquiry and thereafter, order of penalty of reduction of basic pay by eight stages in the timescale was inflicted by Asst. General Manager, I/c- Bhilai Unit vide order dated 31.03.2018. Thereafter, departmental appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner which was dismissed by Deputy General Manager vide order dated 28.5.2018. Subsequently, said order was challenged by the writ petitioner before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur. The reference was dismissed vide order dated 03.01.2025. 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated dated 03.01.2025, the appellant / writ petitioner preferred the writ petition bearing WPL No. 150/2025 before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.04.2026. 8. Calling in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 27.04.2026, the appellant / writ petitioner therein has approached this Court by filing the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned 5 order passed by the learned Single Judge is wholly unsustainable in law as the same has been rendered without properly appreciating the material facts, evidence and peculiar circumstances of the case. It is contended that the appellant had rendered more than 26 years of unblemished, sincere and dedicated service prior to the alleged incident, yet the disciplinary authority imposed the severe punishment of reduction of basic pay by eight stages in the time scale without considering the appellant’s spotless service record, mitigating circumstances or the proportionality of the punishment. It is further submitted that the appellant is on the verge of superannuation and the impugned penalty has grave civil consequences, not only reducing his present salary but also adversely affecting his pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral benefits, thereby causing irreparable financial prejudice at the fag end of his service career. Learned counsel argues that there was absolutely no legal or reliable evidence to establish the charge of intoxication, as no medical examination, breath analyser test or any scientific test was conducted to objectively prove that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol while on duty, and the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry are based merely on conjectures and surmises. It is further contended that the allegation of dishonesty in connection with the company’s business is vague, unsupported by any evidence of wrongful gain to the appellant or corresponding loss to the employer, and the essential ingredients 6 of such misconduct were neither pleaded nor proved. It is submitted that there was neither any breach of the Standing Orders nor disobedience of any lawful order of a superior officer. Learned counsel further submits that the enquiry was conducted with a predetermined approach to implicate the appellant and the conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary authority are so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have reached such findings. It is argued that the learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition in a routine and non-speaking manner without considering the substantial grounds urged by the appellant or examining whether the punishment was shockingly disproportionate. According to learned counsel, even assuming the misconduct to have been established, the learned Single Judge ought to have exercised its writ jurisdiction to interfere with or at least reduce the punishment, considering its excessive and disproportionate nature. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order as well as the punishment imposed upon the appellant be set aside or, in the alternative, the penalty be suitably modified in the interest of justice. Reliance is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab & Sind Bank Vs. Raj Kumar reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 519, relevant paras of which are quoted hereinbelow: “9. What follows from the precedents noted above is that courts should exercise restraint while interdicting orders of punishment. Normally, no court in exercise of its power of 7 judicial review should interfere with an order of punishment imposed on a delinçuent as a measure of disciplinary action by the competent authority and substitute its own judgment for that of the former. This is premised on the reason that the disciplinary authority is the best judge of the situation, and the requirements of maintaining discipline within the work force. While it is not the law that the courts should invariably stay at a distance when legality and/or propriety of a particular punishment is questioned, judicial scrutiny of the disciplinary action by way of punishment, could arise only if the circumstances are such that no reasonable person would impose the punishment which is questioned and/or such punishment has the effect of shocking the conscience of the court. To put in simpler words, interference could be warranted if it appeals to the court that the disciplinary authority has 'used a sledgehammer for cracking a nut'. A punishment, which is strikingly or shockingly disproportionate and is not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct, proved to have been committed in course of inquiry or otherwise, would border on arbitrariness and offend Article 14 of the Constitution.” 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgment dated 27.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that the same has been passed after due consideration of the pleadings, documents on record and the statutory scheme governing the field in which, no interference is sought for. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 8 impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and the pleadings and documents placed on record. 12. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant, observed that the appellant had been placed under suspension immediately after the incident and a departmental enquiry was initiated in accordance with the applicable Standing Orders. The enquiry was conducted after serving the articles of charge upon the appellant, during which the Management examined six witnesses, who deposed that the appellant was found absent from his assigned duties, was allegedly under the influence of alcohol, did not cooperate with the Management and left the workplace without undergoing medical examination or recording his biometric exit. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, all the charges were held to be proved and the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of reduction of basic pay by eight stages in the time scale. The learned Single Judge further held that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran and Union of India v. Datta Linga Toshatwad, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 160, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters arising out of departmental enquiries is limited and the High Court cannot re- appreciate the evidence or interfere with the findings of fact unless the enquiry suffers from procedural irregularity, violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or the punishment 9 imposed is so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant had failed to establish any procedural illegality or violation of the applicable Standing Orders and held that his defence remained unsubstantiated. Relying upon the concurrent findings recorded by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the learned CGIT-cum-Labour Court, the learned Single Judge concluded that no case for interference was made out and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. 13. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry. However, the question which falls for consideration is whether the punishment imposed upon the appellant is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct proved. It is well settled that though the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited, the Court can interfere where the punishment imposed is so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab & Sind Bank v. Raj Kumar (supra) has reiterated that while ordinarily the disciplinary authority is the best judge of the quantum of punishment, judicial interference is warranted where the punishment is “strikingly or shockingly disproportionate” to the gravity of the misconduct and where the disciplinary authority has “used a sledgehammer for 10 cracking a nut.” 14. In the present case, the appellant had rendered more than 26 years of unblemished service prior to the incident and is nearing the age of superannuation. The penalty of reduction of basic pay by eight stages in the time scale has serious civil consequences, not only affecting his present emoluments but also substantially diminishing his retiral benefits, including pension and gratuity. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the punishment imposed is excessively harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct proved. The ends of justice would be adequately met if the punishment is suitably modified. 15. While affirming the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry and upholding the finding of misconduct, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, as affirmed by the appellate authority, the learned CGIT-cum-Labour Court and the learned Single Judge, is modified. Instead of reduction of the appellant’s basic pay by eight stages in the time scale, the appellant shall suffer the penalty of reduction of basic pay by four stages in the time scale. The respondents shall re-fix the pay of the appellant accordingly and extend all consequential monetary and retiral benefits flowing from such modification, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. 11 16. The writ appeal is accordingly partly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet