2005 Supreme(SC) 1475

2005(7) Supreme 603
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Mrs. Ruma Pal, Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
F.C.I. & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Sone Lal —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6808 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10452 of 2004)
With
Civil Appeal No. 6809 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18505/2004)
Decided on 14-11-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : A. Sharan, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate, S. Goel, C.M. Chopra, R.K. Joshi, P.N. Puri, S.P. Sharma, A. Bhardwaj, K.P. Sharma, A. Atrey, S. Singh, D.K. Thakur, S. Prem Chander, N. Thakur, R.K. Singh and Debasis Misra, Advocates.

Headnote:Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971—Regulation 56—Punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by Sr. Regional Manager upon respondent who was working as Technical Assistant Grade I—High Court allowed the writ and set aside the order of compulsory retirement holding that Sr. Regional Manager was not competent to impose penalty as respondent had been promoted as Technical Grade I by Zonal Manager—Appeal by Corporation before Division Bench was also dismissed—Appeal—Questions; whether Senior Regional Manager FCI, was competent to impose penalty of compulsory retirement on respondent? Yes—Whether action taken by appellant was vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice?—As question of violation of principles of natural justice had not been considered by Division Bench, matter needed to be remanded.

       Held : We have carefully perused the records and the FCI Regulations. In our opinion, the Division Bench totally overlooked and failed to consider the case of the appellant herein that the file had been put up before the Zonal Manager only for the purpose of retention of Technical Assistant Grade-I selectees within Punjab, in promoted capacity due to non-existing vacancies in the Region and not for approval of promotion of any other officials. This ground has been specifically and pointedly taken in the special leave petition. We are of the opinion that the inference drawn by the Division Bench is, therefore, not correct and untenable. The Division Bench of the High Court while accepting that Senior Regional Manager (appellant No. 3) was the appointing authority for the post of ‘Technical Assistant Grade-I’ (a group/category III post) and could impose any penalty (including major penalty), erred in holding that in the present case the “appointing authority” which as per explanation appearing below proviso to Regulation 56 was the authority competent to appoint or a higher authority which (actually) appointed the official concerned was the Zonal Manager (higher authority) and hence the major penalty of compulsory retirement could not have been imposed by the Senior Regional Manager. The Senior Regional Manager/Regional Manager/Zonal Manager are each competent to impose any of the penalties i.e. minor as well as major penalties. It is evident that the Senior Regional Manager is not only the appointing authority for the post held by the respondent but also he is competent to act as disciplinary authority for the purpose of Regulations 56, 57, 58 and 59 of the Regulations and impose major penalties. As per Regulation 56 and Appendix 2 of the Regulations the appointing authority of category (iii) post is Senior Regional Manager/Regional Manager and that Zonal Manager is not the appointing authority. This apart the Respondent was not promoted by the Zonal Manager (North) but by Zonal Promotion Committee though promotion orders are issued from the Zonal office only because seniority of Group/category III is maintained on Zonal basis in respect of all the regions under North Zone and Deputy Zonal Manager posts the promotees with the zone and that Senior Regional Manager who is equal in rank to the Deputy Zonal Manager had jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings and impose penalty. It is submitted that the proceedings of the Zonal Promotion Committee were not required to be approved nor were approved by the Zonal Manager. Moreover there is no regulation that provides that the proceedings/promotions made by Zonal promotion Committee are to be approved by any higher authority. In fact the file was never put up to the Zonal Manager for approval of the promotion made by Zonal Promotion Committee. In our view, the mere mention of the designation of the Zonal Manager (North) in the office order of promotion could not lead to the inference that the respondent had been promoted by that officer. Both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench have also erred in not appreciating that the order dated 28/29.11.1979 had been issued on the recommendations of the Zonal Promotion Committee headed by Deputy Zonal Manager without obtaining and without any necessity of obtaining approval from appellant No. 2. In our view, the Zonal Promotion Committee is the final authority for making promotions within category III and Zonal Manager has nothing to do with regard to the promotions made by the Committee. (Paras 15 to 17)

       We have also perused the judgment of the Division Bench. Before the Division Bench, two contentions were raised - one with regard to the jurisdiction of appellant No. 3 to initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose punishment of compulsory retirement and - two that the action taken by the appellant No. 3 was vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice. Though two contentions were raised, the learned judges of the Division Bench have considered only the jurisdiction of appellant No. 3 to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement. Both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties have also advanced arguments mainly on that contention. At the time of hearing, copy of the writ petition filed before the High Court and the copy of the written statement filed on behalf of the FCI was placed before us. We have perused the same. It has been specifically mentioned in para 8 of the writ petition that the Senior Regional Manager has not even issued any show cause notice before inflicting such major penalty and moreover no enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner before awarding punishment thus violates principles of natural justice. In the written statement filed by FCI in para 8 it has been stated as follows :-

       “No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by non-issuance of show cause notice before inflicting the penalties. The order of punishment has been passed in accordance with the provisions of FCI Staff Service Regulations, 1971.”

       As rightly pointed out by Mr. Ramachandran, this question has not been examined by the Division Bench and the High Court has allowed the writ petition on another ground without going into the question of principles of natural justice. We have today confirmed the finding in regard to the competence of the Senior Regional Manager in initiating departmental proceedings and imposing punishment. We, therefore, remit the matter to the Division Bench for consideration of the second issue, namely, violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 21 to 23)