Important Point
Where conduct of Appellant an Assistant Grade-III in one of the Food Storage Depots of Food Corporation of India during the raid, as also the manner in which the shortages occurred, clearly showed that without his active support, Unit Incharge alone could not have caused shortage of 295 bags of wheat and 195 bags BTB Class gunny bags then imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement from services on appellant was held justified.

Headnote:Service Law — 295 bags of wheat and 195 bags BTB Class gunny bags were found missing in one of the Food Storage Depots of Food Corporation of India — Appellant an Assistant Grade-III was found guilty of charges on basis of report of enquiry officer — The disciplinary authority, imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from services on appellant- Departmental appeal preferred thereagainst-Dismissed by Appellate Authority — Review application —Dismissed — Writ petition filed by appellant — Dismissed by High Court — Plea of appellant that all officers concerned had found only Unit Incharge responsible for shortages and appellant had been proceeded against only on surmises and conjunctures — Held it might be true that Unit Incharge was in-charge of the godown but manner in which shortages had occurred categorically showed that it could not have been possible without active support and/or connivance of appellant and other staff-Perusal of report of enquiry officer showed that appellant was also responsible for shortages of 295 bags of wheat — It was, therefore, not correct to contend that appellant had nothing to do with shortages of wheat — His conduct during the raid, as also the manner in which the shortages occurred, clearly showed that without his active support, Unit Incharge alone could not have caused said misconduct — No cause made out to differ with said findings — Appeal dismissed. (Paras 11 to 16)
       Facts of the Case :
       1.295 bags of wheat and 195 bags BTB Class gunny bags were found missing in one of Food Storage Depots of Food Corporation of India. Appellant an Assistant Grade-III was found guilty of charges on basis of report of enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority, imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from services on appellant.
       2.Plea of appellant that all officers concerned had found only Unit Incharge responsible for shortages and appellant had been proceeded against only on surmises and conjunctures.
       Findings of the Court :
       It might be true that Unit Incharge was in-charge of the godown but manner in which shortages had occurred categorically showed that it could not have been possible without active support and/or connivance of appellant and other staff-Perusal of report of enquiry officer showed that appellant was also responsible for shortages of 295 bags of wheat. It was, therefore, not correct to contend that appellant had nothing to do with shortages of wheat.His conduct during the raid, as also the manner in which the shortages occurred, clearly showed that without his active support, Unit Incharge alone could not have caused said misconduct. No cause was made out to differ with said findings. Appeal was dismissed.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1.Order dated 12.2.2007 is recalled.

2.Leave granted.

3.Appellant was an Assistant Grade-III (AG-III) in one of the Food Storage Depots of Food Corporation of India. 295 bags of wheat and 195 bags BTB Class gunny bags were found missing when special physical verification was conducted by the physical verification squad during the period 7.1.1980 and 22.1.1980.

4.One Bhoop Singh was the unit in-charge of the godown. Appellant, Rattan Singh and one Kunwar Singh were working thereat as the Assistant Grades Clerk. Shortages in the said depots were suspected. The godowns were sealed. Physical verifications were made by Physical Verification Squad (PVS). Stock checking exercises were carried out in the said godown during the period 7.1.1980 to 22.1.1980. 295 bags of wheat and 195 bags of gunnies in Unit No.1 of which Bhoop Singh was the in-charge, were found short.

The contents of the vigilance report were verified by one Shri Panchhi. Apart from Bhoop Singh, Nahar Singh and Kunwar Singh were posted there. Shortages and excesses were found in 12 stacks of wheat. The total shortages were found to be 295 bags of wheat and the excess amounted to 11 bags only. Whereas shortages were found on the top layers of the stacks which were not visible from the ground, except Stack No.4/16 and 1/11, which were from partly used stacks.

5.Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the aforementioned Bhoop Singh and others. The imputation of charges drawn against the appellant were on the basis of the report of the said inspection carried out by the vigilance department as also the one submitted by Shri I.d. Nautial, Assistant Manager (Vigilance) containing compilation of the statements made by the entire staff of the Food Storage Depot, Sahibabad. Appellant was found guilty of the charges on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer which was submitted before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, by an order dated 18.4.1986 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from services of the Corporation. A departmental appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the Appellate Authority in September 1986. A review application filed thereagaisnt was also dismissed on 22.11.1987.

6.Appellant thereafter filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow which by reason of the impugned judgment dated 17.5.2005 has been dismissed.

7.Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would contend that from a perusal of the enquiry report, it would be evident that the appellant had been held responsible for the shortages only on the ground that he had not informed thereabout to the appropriate authority and in that view of the matter the impugned judgment is wholly unsustainable. The learned counsel would urge that all the officers concerned have found only Bhoop Singh responsible for the shortages and the appellant had been proceeded against in only on surmises and conjunctures. It was urged that the disciplinary authority had passed the impugned order without any application of mind and, thus, the same is liable to be set aside.

8.We may notice that the special leave petition filed by Bhoop Singh has been dismissed summarily by an order dated 12.2.2007.

9.The SLP preferred by the appellant was also listed on the same day but as nobody had appeared, the said special SLP was dismissed for default. Appellant filed an application for review alleging that he, as also his lawyer, was misled in view of the fact that the matter was shown to be listed on 19.2.2007 as per COURTNIC enquiry. We had called for a report from the Registry of the Supreme Court and it appears that the contention of the appellant was not correct. It furthermore appears that the parties had been given notice with regard to the date of listing of the matter.

10.We have, however, entertained the review application and heard the appellant on merits.

11.It may be true that Bhoop Sing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2008 Supreme(SC) 566

2008(2) Supreme 791(1)Supreme Court of IndiaS.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ.Nahar Singh — PetitionerversusFood Corporation of India & Ors. — RespondentsReview Petition (civil) 285 of 2007Decided on : 31-03-2008

Judicial Analysis

2008(2) Supreme 791(1)
Supreme Court of India
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ.
Nahar Singh — Petitioner
versus
Food Corporation of India & Ors. — Respondents
Review Petition (civil) 285 of 2007
Decided on : 31-03-2008