Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice; absence of adequate evidence and procedural compliance renders such actions void.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred to assail the legality, propriety, and sustainability of the charge-sheet dated 18th April, 2021; the final order of punishment dated 12th July, 2012; the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 9th May, 2017, as subsequently amended by a corrigendum dated 24th May, 2017; and the order rendered by the Reviewing Authority on 3rd January, 2020. Accordingly, the petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the aforementioned impugned documents and orders, being ex facie unsustainable in law and on facts. In addition, the petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith release all service-related dues and benefits to which the petitioner is lawfully entitled, consequent upon the annulment of the punitive actions taken against him.

2. Before delving into the controversy hovering around the writ petition, it would be appropriate to refer to the essential facts that led to the institution of the present writ petition.

3. The petitioner initially joined the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘FCI’) as a Technical Assistant, Grade-III. In due course, he was promoted to the post of Technical Assistant, Grade-I. While serving at the Food Storage Depot (in short, FSD), Mangalbari, during the period 2000–2001, under the jurisdiction of the Area Manager, Malda, FCI, the petitioner was served with a Memorandum of Charge-Sheet dated 8th April, 2021, accompanied by a Statement of Imputation of Misconduct and Misbehavior. The charge-sheet contained a single article of charge, alleging that, during his tenure as Technical Assistant, Grade-II, at the godown of FSD, Kalyani, in 1999, the petitioner failed to take adequate preventive measures to preserve the food grains. This alleged omission led to the deterioration and downgrading of the food grains while they remained stacked in the godown. Consequently, the petitioner, being a member of the Quality Control Team at the relevant time, was held accountable for the lapse.

4. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence and participated in the departmental enquiry proceedings. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence adduced by the management, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charge levelled against the petitioner remained unsubstantiated. Notwithstanding the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, in the exercise of its discretion, recorded its disagreement with the said findings and proceeded to impose a penalty of reduction in pay by three stages, with cumulative effect. Additionally, it was directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to earn his normal increments during the period of reduction.

5. The petitioner challenged the final order of punishment by filing a writ petition, being W.P. No. 16695(W) of 2006, which was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court by an order dated 14th March, 2012. In its order, the Bench observed that the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment without first recording the tentative reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, without affording the petitioner an opportunity to submit a representation against such tentative reas