Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 531
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Abhishek Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
Food Corporation Of India & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 224 of 2021, CM No. 589 of 2021
Decided On : 23-08-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj, SC for FCI with Ms. Aparna Sinha, Adv.
Point of Law : Service Law - Transfer of service - Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Petitioners were working as Statistical Officers and who have some explanation for not joining the places of transfer for personal reasons and illness. The reasons given by the petitioner for not joining the place of posting have already been stated above. The justifiability of reasons have to be gone into by the Inquiry Officer / Disciplinary Authority. It is not for the Court to consider the relative merit of the stand of the parties and come to a conclusion.
Finding of the Court : No doubt, the petitioner did say that there is also malice in fact, but he did not elaborate the same in the manner he has done in the petition. The plea of mala fide clearly appears to be an afterthought. That apart, though the respondent No.2 has retired, the new disciplinary authority is pursuing the chargesheet - Petitioners were working as Statistical Officers and who have some explanation for not joining the places of transfer for personal reasons and illness.
Result : Writ petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
“In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above and the submissions made, the Petitioner prays that the Hon'ble High Court may be graciously pleased to:
(i) issue rule nisi to the Respondents;
(ii) quash and set aside the Major penalty charge sheet dated 04.08.2020 [Annexure : P-1];
(iii) grant all consequential benefits of the same;
(iv) allow exemplary costs of the present Writ Petition to the Petitioner against the Respondents; and
(v) pass such other and further order/(s) as may be deemed just and appropriate in the facts, circumstances and premises of the present case.”
2. In substance, the petitioner is challenging the charge sheet dated August 04, 2020 issued to him. The charge against the petitioner is the following:
STATEMENT OF ARTICLE 0F CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SHRI ABHISHEK YADAV, GM (G), FCI, ZONAL OFFICE NOIDA
Article of Charge-I
Shri Abhishek Yadav GM (G) was transferred from MP Region to Zonal Office (East), Kolkata vide Office Order No. 12/2020/E.1 dated 5.2.2020. Zonal Office (West) relieved the officer from West Zone wef 20.2.2020 (A/N) with the direction to report to Executive Director Zone, ZO (East), Kolkata vide Office Order No. 21/2020 dated 19.2.2020.
Shri Abhishek Yadav was placed under suspension vide Order No.E.1/PF-AY/2020/WZ dated 30.3.2020 as he did not report to his new place of posting within the stipulated time.
Subsequently, officer has reported at his new place of posting i.e., Zonal Office (North) on 1.6.2020 and his suspension was revoked vide Order dated 2/3.6.2020.
Shri Abhishek Yadav, GM (G) did not join place of posting after expiry of Joining time and remained unauthorized absent from duty from 20.2.2020 to 31.5.2020.
By the above act, Shri Abhishek Yadav GM (G) exhibited lack of devotion towards her duty and exhibits gross in-subordination towards lawful orders of the Corporation. Thus, Shri Abhishek Yadav, GM (General) has contravened the FCI (Staff) Regulation 1971, article 32-A (5), (6), (7), (9), (18), (19), (20) (22) & (30).”
3. It is the case of the petitioner and so contended by Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was transferred from Bhopal to Kolkata vide order dated February 05, 2020 and was relieved from his duties w.e.f. afternoon of February 20, 2020. The petitioner represented against the transfer on humanitarian grounds. On March 03, 2020, while on his way to Kolkata, the petitioner met respondent No.2, who assured the petitioner of sympathetic consideration.
4. According to Mr. Mohanty, the petitioner instead of proceeding to Kolkata, returned to Bhopal. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. March 30, 2020. The Headquarter of the petitioner was changed from Kolkata to NOIDA vide Order dated May 27, 2020 and the petitioner joined NOIDA on June 01, 2020. Then the suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide order dated June 02/03, 2020. The petitioner was issued a Major Penalty Charge Sheet on August, 04, 2020.
5. According to Mr. Mohanty, the petitioner submitted a complaint against the respondent No.2 in the morning of August 04, 2020 and in retaliation, the respondent No.2 filed a Police Complaint in the evening of the same day. By using his influence and his powerful friends, the respondent No.2 was successful in getting an FIR registered against the petitioner on August 15, 2020 and that too for non-cognizable offences. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the major penalty charge sheet. However, without considering the said reply, the Inquiring Authority had been appointed on October 15, 2020. He stated that the respondent No.2 has been inimical towards the petitioner for reasons best known to him and it was the respondent No.2 who had issued the impugned Major Penalty Charge Sheet. The situation took a turn for the worse on July 31, 2020 at 7 O’ Clock in the morning, when th
