IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific charges causing pecuniary loss and assessment of the quantum of damage before imposing penalties, particularly forfeiture of gratuity.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. We have heard Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, learned advocate for the appellant/Food Corporation of India and Ms. Minu Kumari for the respondents.

2. The respondent was dismissed from service and an order was passed for forfeiture of all the terminal benefits including gratuity.

3. The aforenoted order of dismissal was affirmed in appeal and the same was also sustained before the Reviewing Authority.

4. Three charges were raised against him during the period he was posted as Manager (Storage) in Food Corporation of India at Bhadurpur, Patna viz. (i) that he as a Member of the Committee did not submit any progress/interim/final report or intimate factual position even after lapse of more than two months, compelling the Area Manager of the Food Corporation of India to issue another order directing the Committee Members to conduct and do the same job as assigned to them earlier, which was an act of disobedience; (ii) two reports were submitted by the Committee of which the respondent was part, which were issued in a most casual and cavalier manner without supervising the delivery of paddy and its transportation, leading to an interference that the Committee was hand in gloves with the In-charge Paddy Procurement Center, Dumraon and, therefore, the factual position was suppressed and lastly (iii) that without any justification, there was an inordinate delay in supervising the delivery as well as shifting of paddy by the Committee.

5. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted his report with a finding that all the charges against the respondent were proved. On receipt of such enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a second show-cause notice to the respondent along with a copy of the enquiry report to which he had replied.

6. After consideration of the enquiry report as also the reply of the respondent, the penalty as noted above, was imposed on the respondent.

7. It was urged by the respondent before the writ court that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were totally beyond the records. In fact, the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer clearly disclosed that the charges against the respondent were not proved. Some of the documents demanded by the respondent were also not provided to him. It was also argued that an employee after his superannuation ought not to be visited with the punishment of dismissal; saddling the respondent with the aforenoted penalty displayed complete lack of application of mind.

8. On these grounds, it was urged that the penalty imposed on the respondent was not in consonance with the law and facts.

9. The writ Court, found that there was no specific charge of causing any pecuniary loss to the Corporation and only by inference, such penalty ought not to have been imposed specially forfeiture of gratuity and all terminal benefits and that also without assessment of the quantum of losses suffered by the Corporation because of the acts of omission or negligence of the respondent.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant/ Corporation has submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in point of law in holding that the gratuity could not have been withheld and that there was no question of non-application of mind in the event of punishment of dismissal having been saddled upon the respondent after his retirement.

11. Though there was no specific charge with respect to having caused losses to the Corporation but, there was a clear inference and deduction that such omission on the part of the Committee of which the respondent was a Member, there was delay in procurement/shifting/delivery of paddy which could have resulted in losses to the Corporation for sure.

12. Mr. Tekriwal has further submitted that if an employee, during the pendency of the departmental proceeding, superannuates but the authority finds that he was guilty, the Disciplinary Authority could withhold payment of gratuity and could have ordered for recovery from gratuity of whole or part of any pe