Back
High Court Of Delhi
V.D.SETH - Appellant
Versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 932 of 1989
Decided On : 01/30/1991
FCI (STAFF) REGULATIONS - REG. 31, 32, 74 - REVIEW OF ORDER OF EXONERATION - REASONABLE TIME - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - COMPETENCY OF REVIEWING AUTHORITY - DIRECTION BY CENTRAL GOVT. - QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an employee of Food Corp. of India (FCI), was exonerated of charges of misconduct in 1985. In 1989, the Chairman of FCI ordered a review of the exoneration order and directed a fresh inquiry. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that it was passed beyond a reasonable time, violated principles of natural justice, and was passed under the direction of the Central Government, thereby usurping the quasi-judicial power of the Chairman.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned order was passed beyond a reasonable time, as it was issued more than 5 months after the petitioner's promotion and more than 6 years after the incident in question. The Court also held that the order violated principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order was passed. Furthermore, the Court held that the order was passed as a result of a direction by the Food Minister, which amounted to usurping the quasi-judicial power of the Chairman.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order was passed within a reasonable time? 2. Whether the impugned order violated principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the impugned order was passed under the direction of the Central Government, thereby usurping the quasi-judicial power of the Chairman?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned order was not passed within a reasonable time, as it was issued more than 5 months after the petitioner's promotion and more than 6 years after the incident in question. The Court noted that the petitioner had already been exonerated of the charges and promoted, and that the delay in passing the review order was prejudicial to the petitioner. 2. The Court held that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order was passed. The Court noted that the petitioner had a vested right to the order of exoneration, and that setting aside the order without giving him an opportunity to be heard was a violation of his right to fair play. 3. The Court held that the impugned order was passed as a result of a direction by the Food Minister, which amounted to usurping the quasi-judicial power of the Chairman. The Court noted that the Minister's order was specific and directed the Board to reopen the case and proceed against the petitioner, and that this amounted to an interference with the quasi-judicial powers of the Chairman.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the impugned order and quashed the subsequent orders appointing the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer.
( 1 ) PETITIONER joined Govt. of India in 1958. He was transferred to Food Corp. of India in 1969. He became Dy Manager in 1977. In 1982, he was working as Distt. Manager and was alleged to have taken bribe. He was charged with misconduct u/reg. 31, 32 of FCI (Staff) Regulations. Enquiry was begun on 17. 2. 84 and concluded on 25. 5. 85, when Govt. was not allowed further time to produce evidence and its case was closed. Petitioner was exonerated and re-instated. In Aug. , 88, he was promoted. Then in Jan. , 89, Chairman of FCI ordered u/reg. 74, review of the order of 1985 by which petitioner was exonerated and ordered holding of enquiry by examining witnesses who were earlier not allowed to be examined. Petitioner Challenged this by filing W. P. ] After detailing above, Judgment is :
( 2 ) THE most important question now to be considered is as to whether the impugned order dated 17. 1. 89 has been passed by the Chairman, FCI within a reasonable period. It may be noted that the petitioner was involved in a case of accepting illegal gratification on 21. 7. 82. Charges framed against the petitioner on 10,10. 83 were served upon him on 1. 12. 83. The inquiry proceedings were commenced on 17. 2. 84 and report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the appropriate authorities on 3. 3. 86. The inquiry report was accepted by the zonal Manager, respondent 4 and thus the Petitioner was exonerated of the charges framed against him. The petitioner was at that time working as a Manager. On the basis of selection made by the Promotion Committee headed by the Chairman of respondent 1, the petitioner was promoted as Joint Manager on 9. 8. 88. It is only thereafter that the impugned order has been passed on 17. 1. 89 The question now thus is as to whether this order has been passed within a reasonable period or not. After giving my due thought to all these submissions in this regard I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the order is not passed within a reasonable period and so it has to be held to be beyond limitation and thus cannot be sustained. It is apparent from the records that the zonal Manager (North) examined the inquiry report and other relevant records and found that there were numerous contradictions in the testimony of the main witness of the department namely Mumtaz Ali. The finding of the inquiry report was accepted. Copies of this order were sent to many including Personnel Manager, FCI Hqrs , the Confidential Report Cell, FCI, the Establishment-1 Section, FCI, for personal file and the chief vigilance officer. It is also to be noted that in its meeting dated 4. 7. 88 the Senior Promotion Board headed by the Chairman of the FCI considered the numbers of merit/seniority and on the basis of grading assigned to them selected 16 persons for promotion to the post of Joint Manager (General) and the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No. 6. This list of the officers was approved by the Executive Committee of the FCI on 29. 7. 88. It would, thus be clear that the factum of the petitioner having been involved in a case of accepting illegal gratification, his suspension, his facing departmental inquiry and being exonarated of the charges must have been before the said Promotion Committee headed by the Chairman of the FCI. It is thus clear that after the approval of the exoneration of the Petitioner the order was even acted upon inasmuch as the petitioner was given his promotion due to him. It is more than 5 months after this promotion that the impugned order reviewing the order dated 17. 1. 89 exonerating the petitioner of the charges was passed. This order, thus cannot be said to have been passed within a reasonable period. I find support for this view from the case Mahadeo Prasad Gautam 1986 (1) SLR. 306. In the said case the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect was passed on 26. 11. 77 and the petitioner was simultaneously reinstated. After he earned one increment, the petitione
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
