Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
Mr. Peeyush Tiwari - Petitioner
Versus
Food Corporation of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 966 of 2021
Decided On : 22-10-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Enactment of Food Corporation Act, 1964 - Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 - Regulation 58, 56, 68 and 59(2) - Power of high court to issue certain writs - Petitioner has filed writ petition against Order passed by Board of Directors of respondent by which respondent rejected appeal filed against Order passed by Disciplinary Authority - Confirms Order of penalty of ‘Removal from Service’ passed by DA of Food Corporation of India - Whether impugned orders and passed by Appellate Authority and DA removing petitioner from services of respondent organization is justified.
Finding of the Court: In the absence of any evidence that someone has planted the money to trap the petitioner of serious charges against him, the charges have been held to be proved - charge against the petitioner, in this case, is not demanding / accepting the money as bribe, but the same is that the petitioner could not satisfactorily give any reasonable ground of the recovery of money from his office / toilet and from the table drawers and in the absence of any evidence that someone has planted the money to trap the petitioner of serious charges against him, the charges have been held to be proved - Regulation 59(2) of Regulations of 1971 permits DA, if it disagrees with findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge, to record its reasons for such disagreement and record its findings on such charge if evidence on record is sufficient for purposes - In Court regard, reliance has been placed on judgment of Supreme Court - While dealing with issue that no ground has been made out for intervention by Court, he submitted that judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of - It is further submitted by that DA found reasoning of IO to be specious - Regulation 59(2) of Regulations of 1971 permits DA, if it disagrees with findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge, to record its reasons for such disagreement and record its findings on such charge if evidence on record is sufficient for purposes - Petitioner had made demand for monies and / or had accepted said monies - Charge against petitioner, in case, is not demanding / accepting money as bribe, but same is that petitioner could not satisfactorily give any reasonable ground of recovery of money from his office / toilet and from table drawers and in absence of any evidence that someone has planted money to trap petitioner of serious charges against him, charges have been held to be proved Similarly, case of shall also be not applicable in facts of Court case as said Judgment arises from criminal proceeding initiated against respondent therein.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :-
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to reverse and set aside and quash the Penalty Order dated 16 July 2020 passed by the Managing Director of the Respondent removing the Petitioner from service;
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner back in service;
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to treat the intermittent period of the petitioner as that spent on duty and direct the Respondent to pay the complete pay and allowances of the said period to the petitioner;
(v) Consequent to the dismissal order dated 16 July 2020 and the appellate order dated 03.11.2020 being set aside, pass orders for all consequential benefits, in all respect, in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondent;
(vi) Pass any other or further orders as may be deemed to be just and proper in the circumstances of the present case.”
2. It is a case wherein the petitioner / Charged Officer (‘CO’, for short) was the Area Manager of the respondent's District Office at Moga, Punjab. The respondent is an organization created and run by the Government of India. It is a statutory body under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, formed by the enactment of the Food Corporation Act, 1964.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the Order dated November 03, 2020, passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent by which the respondent rejected the appeal filed against the Order dated July 16, 2020, passed by the Disciplinary Authority (‘DA’, for short).
4. Order dated November 03, 2020, confirms the Order of penalty of ‘Removal from Service’ dated July 16, 2020, passed under Regulation 58 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 by the DA of the Food Corporation of India (‘FCI’, for short).
5. It is contended by Ms. Rashmi Gogoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Impugned Order dated November 03, 2020, which affirms the earlier order dated July 16, 2020, is without reliable evidence which could connect the petitioner with the Government Currency (‘GC’, for short) notes recovered from the petitioner's office and therefore the Impugned Orders amounts to a gross miscarriage of justice. It is further contended by her that the respondent has erred in passing the impugned orders as the order of removal from service as well as the appellate order, are based on no evidence or proof, and at best is a case of suspicion, which cannot entail the penalty of removal.
6. Brief factual background that led to the filing of the present writ petition is that on March 19, 2018, a search was conducted at the office of the petitioner by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’, for short) based on a complaint filed by Rohit Mittal for purposes of investigation. According to the aforementioned investigation conducted at the office chamber of the petitioner, GC notes were obtained from the flush tank of the toilet and from the right-side drawer of the table amounting to a sum of Rs. 2,52,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty-Two Thousand Only). Moreover, it is submitted that the drawer was inaccessible to the petitioner as it was on the opposite side of the table from where the petitioner sat.
7. In addition, Ms. Gogoi stated that the main purpose behind the investigation was to harass and humiliate the petitioner because the said investigation was carried out based on a complaint filed by Rohit Mittal the owner of M/s Sran Mills aga
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
