1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal appearing on behalf of the Food Corporation of India.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order, dated 29.6.2000 passed by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Chapra (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation)-and the order of the Senior Manager, dated 26.12.2000 and the orders affirming the aforesaid two orders passed by the Zonal Manager East of (he Corporation by which the review application was dismissed. By the aforesaid orders the petitioners were imposed penally in a departmental proceeding.

3. There are two petitioners before this court and except for only a few variations in the dates, the cases of the two petitioners are same.

4. The petitioners were working as Depot Incharge. Petitioner no. lwas Assistant Grade I (D) and petitioner no.2 was Assistant Grade II (D) at Hajipur during the relevant period and they were incharge of the Storage depot of the Corporation at Hajipur. The petitioners were issued a show cause notice on 21.4.1999 and 16.10.1999 respectively from the District Manager of the Corporal ion at Chapra to show cause on an alleged misconduct relating to entry in the receipt account of rice consignments. It was alleged that there was an abnormal shortage of rice in the consignment which was received in the Corporations depot and the parcentage of loss was 4.13. Petitioner no.1 was given seven days time to show his cause. Similarly petitioner no.2 was given the same amount of time to reply to (he show cause as to why a departmental proceeding should not be initiated against them.

5. The petitioners submitted their reply on 14.5.1909 and 12.11.1999 respectively. On 12.11.1999 itself the petitioners received a charge sheet and it was indicated that petitioner no,l was responsible for a shortage of which the value was Rs.1,68,427.60 and Rs.56,143.20. The petitioners were required to show cause as to why pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation should not be recovered from the salary of the petitioners. Again the petitioners were given seven days time to file their reply. The petitioners filed their reply on 4.12.1999 and 3.12.1999 respectively.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire proceedings were held in a perfunctory planner and from the very facts it appears that the initial show cause filed by, the petitioners were not considered before issuing the charge sheet. As may be noted, the show cause of petitioner no.2 was filed on 12.11.1199 and the charge sheet was also issued on 12.11.1999 itself which would indicate the mechanical manner in which the authorities have acted. The order of punishment of petitioner no.l is being quoted below :

"As per the opinion given by the Advocate, F.C.I., Chapra, it has been decided that Rs.5,300.00 will be deducted from your salary per month during your service period and the rest amount of penalty which cannot be adjusted during your service period that amount will be deducted from the amounted of Gratuity, P.F. or any arrear etc., payable to you."

Similarly the order of punishment of petitioner no.2 reads as follows : "As per the opinion given by the Advocate. P.C.I., Chnpra, it has been decided that Rs.5,600.00 will be deducted from your salary per month in nine instalment and rest balance amount Rs.5,743.20 in 10th and final instalment."

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation has submitted that the petitioners were punished in terms of regulation 54 and it is the common ground that both the petitioners were proceeded in terms of regulation 60 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971. Regulation 54 enumerates the minor penalties which are as follows :

"i) Censure

ii) Withholding of his promotion;

iii) Recovery from his salary of whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Corporation by negligence or breach of orders.

iv) Withholding of increments of pay."

The procedure adopted was under regulatio