( 1 ) THIS case concerns the Food Corporation of India (the Corporation ). The Corporation was established by the Food Corporation Act 1964 (the Act ). Section 45 of the Act empowers the Corporation to frame regulations. In exercise of this delegated power the Corporation framed the Staff Regulations in 1971.

( 2 ) THESE corporate bodies exercise functions of a legislative nature delegated to them by legislative bodies. In essence they are subordinate legislative bodies, but in truth, they are what Lord Maugham described in Rowell v. Pratf, (1938) A. C. 101 (113) as domestic bodies which the legislature has thought fit in public, interest to entrust with important statutory powers. The Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1971 have, therefore, the force of a statute (See Kmlash Nath v. State of U. P. , AIR 1957 S. C. 790 (791 ).

( 3 ) S. C. Mehta. petitioner in this case, ioined the service of the Government of India, Ministry of Food, as an Assistant Anaivser in 1952. In 1965, after the Corporation was established by the Act of 1964. he came to the Corporation on deputation and continued to work here In 1975, his services were transferred from the Central Government to the Corporation under Sec 12a of the Act. A gazette notification dated 18-3-1975 was published transferring his services with effect from 1-3-1969 from the Government to the Corporation. So from 1-3-1969 the petitioner became a transferred employee of the Corporation. On 1-3 1969 he was working as Senior Assistant Manager (Quality Control) in the Corporation. On 6-6-1971 he was promoted in the Corporation as a Deputy Manager.

( 4 ) ON 15-1-1981 a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner by the Managing Director alleging that he, the petitioner, had written a pseudonymous letter purporting to be in the name of Jagmohan Verma, President of the Staff Union, making certain allegations against M. N. Kohli, another employee of the Corporation, with an intention to cause an injury and annoyance to him and was guilty of an act unbecoming of a Corporation employee and thus violated Regn. 32 of the Staff Regulations. The Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries was appointed as the inquiry officer. He held an inquiry into the charge. On 3-9-1981 he submitted his report. He held that the charge against the petitioner was proved. This was the first inquiry against the petitioner.

( 5 ) SIMULTANEOUSLY with the first inquiry there was a second inquiry against the petitioner. Dharam Das Shastri, a member of the parliament, wrote a letter to the Home Minister requesting him to enquire if any harassment was being caused to the petitioner or if he was being victimised. The Home Minister sent this letter to the Corporation. On this the Managing Director issued another chargesheet to the petitioner. Here the charge was that the petitioner had sought to bring political pressure on the management of the Corporation and this was a violation of Regn. 50 of the Corporation. The Commissioner of Departmental Inquiry was the inquiry officer. On 4-8-1981 he held that the charge against the petitioner was proved.

( 6 ) ON 14-10-81 the Managing Director purporting to act under Regn. 56 read with App. 2 imposed the major penality of compulsory retirement prescribed under Regn. 54 (vii) on the petitioner concurrently on account of each of the above charges made against him. The petitioner appealed to the Chairman of the Corporation as provided under the regulations. The Chairman dismissed the appeal on 4-3-1982.

( 7 ) THERE as yet a third inquiry against the petitioner. On 27-1-1981 a chargesheet was issued to him alleging that in year 1970-71 he had ordered release of paddy stocks to M/s. Max Timer Traders, Mukarian for shelling over and above the financial arrangements, contrary to the instructions. This was said to be a gross irregularity and a failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in the performance of duties and thus a contravention of Regns