Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 1786
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
S. KUMAR, J.
CWJC No. 8223 of 2014
(29.6.2018)
Sri Devendra Prasad Singh – Petitioner
vs.
The Food Corporation of India
& Ors. – Respondents
For the Petitioner: M/s Sanjeev Kumar, Minu Kumar.
For the Respondents: Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal.
Headnote:
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Section 14 – F.C.I. (Staff) Regulations, 1971 – Regulation-60-A (iii) – Dismissal from service – Forfeiture of terminal benefits including gratuity – Employer is empowered to pass order of removal/dismissal if regulation permits continuation of departmental proceedings even after retirement – In present case, order of dismissal will have no adverse effect on delinquent after retirement unless there is any consequential effect of dismissal such as dismissal entails forfeiture of gratuity – Disciplinary authority has also passed order of forfeiture of gratuity which is not permissible – Gratuity partially/wholly can be forfeited to extent of causing damage, loss or destruction of property of employer for which employee has been terminated from service for any misconduct or negligence causing such damage or loss to property of employer or employee has been terminated from service for riotous disorderly conduct or any act of violence, or he has been terminated from service upon his conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude – None of three eventualities which can lead to forfeiture of part/whole gratuity exists in present case – Pecuniary loss can be realised by Corporation but not from gratuity, but other terminal benefits – Since there is no order of recovery of any amount to be realised from petitioner as such petitioner is entitled for leave encashment along with other terminal benefits – Managing Director, Food Corporation of India directed to pay gratuity and earned leave amount and other terminal benefits to petitioner within three months. (Paras 18, 20, 21, 28 and 33)
S. Kumar, J. – The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure-5) passed by the disciplinary authority imposing penalty of dismissal from service and forfeiture of terminal benefits including gratuity as well as order dated 15.05.2013 (Annexure-7) passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure-10) passed by the Reviewing Authority dismissing the review petition of the petitioner.
2. In brief, the facts of the case is that the petitioner was posted as Manager (storage), Food Corporation of India (in short FCI), Bahadurpur, Patna was served with memorandum dated 12.07.2011 along with memo of charge, by which the Executive Director (East) had initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner along with two other officers framing three article of charges. The charges related to irregularity committed by the committee comprising three officers of F.C.I. namely, Devendra Prasad Singh, Manager (Stg.), (petitioner), Mishrj Hembrom, Manager (Depot) and Kumar Madan Mohan, AG-I (Depot). They were directed to proceed PPC, Dumraon for supervising delivery of procured paddy stocks to the Millers and its transportation to the base depot through in-charge PPC, Dumraon and to submit a consolidated report after liquidation of entire paddy stocks vide order dated 08.06.2009.
3. The three article of charges as framed are produced below.
“ARTICLE-I: the aforesaid Committee members did not submit any progress/interim/final report or intimate the factual position even after lapse of more than two months compelling the Area Manager, FCI, DO, Patna to issue another order vide No. PAT/V&S/1/2009 dated 19.08.2009 directing the aforesaid Committee members to conduct the same job as assigned by the order dated 08.06.2009
Thus, the Committee members in clear disobedience to the orders of higher authority were found negligent in their duties and failed to assess the gravity of the matter and to act in the desired manner which is detrimental to the interest of the corporation.
ARTICLE-II: The above Committee members submitted two reports dated 28.08.2009 and dated 28.10.2009 in a very casual manner without supervising the delivery of paddy and its transportation as per direction rather they acted hand in glove with the I/C, PPC, Dumraon in suppressing the factual position and the very purpose of their deployment was defeated.
ARTICLE-III: As per record, for the above assigned job of supervision of delivery/shifting of paddy, Shri Devendra Prasad Singh, Manager (Stg.) and Kumar Madan Mohan, AG-I(D) stayed at PPC, Dumraon for 39 (thirty-nine) days and 41 (forty-one) days respectively which is abnormal and beyond any justification. Except in the Committee Reports there was no signature of the committee members in any other document enclosed with the reports to justify their presence in the center from 13.06.2009 to 28.08.2009 whereas Sri Devendra Prasad Singh, Manager (Stg.) and Sri Kumar Madan Mohan, AG-I(D) have claimed T.A. bills for their stay in the centre for 39 days and 41 days respectively. Sri Mishrj Hembram, Manager (Depot) another committee member has not claimed any TA bill for his stay which raises doubt over his presence in the PPC, Dumraon. They have submitted false reports in connivance with the I/C, PPC, Dumraon who could misappropriate huge good grain stocks at a later stage.”
4. The disciplinary authority appointed Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry and presenting officer to represent department. Petitioner had defended his case.
5. After conclusion of departmental proceeding, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report dated 11.07.2012 as contained in Annexure-3 of writ petition to the disciplinary authority. The Inquiry Officer held all the three charges framed against the petitioner to be proved.
6. The disciplinary authority issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner along
