Point of Law: Rule 56 of SFCI Employee (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, there is no provision for filing of Review Appeal by an employee.

JUDGMENT :

Anu Malhotra, J.

1. The petitioner Bharat Kumar, vide the present petition, seeks the setting aside of the following:-

- impugned charge memo dated 02.02.2011;

- the punishment order dated 07.06.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority;

- order dated 29.05.2013 of the Appellate Authority;

- and order dated 21.10.2013 of the Reviewing Authority;

and seeks directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

2. The respondents arrayed to the petition are the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of State Farms of India Ltd., New Delhi, arrayed as respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 respectively.

3. The Statement of Articles of Charge framed against the Petitioner was in relation to Article of Charge No.1, which was in relation to the petitioner having unauthorizedly absented himself from duty from 27.12.2010 whilst working as an Administrative Officer at the Central State Farm, Bahraich. It has further been stated in the Articles of Charge that it had been reported that the petitioner left the farm on his own will from 27.12.2010 without getting any leave sanctioned from his Competent Authority, and a memorandum dated 14.01.2011 was also issued to the petitioner by the Director, Central State Farm, Bahraich to explain the reason as to why he deliberately left the farm without prior permission and without getting the leave sanctioned, but no reply was received from him till the date of the Memorandum of the Articles of Charge dated 02.02.2011. The said action of the petitioner, as per the Articles of Charge, was in violation of rules and regulations of the Corporation, with it having been stated therein that the petitioner had violated the provisions of Regulation 123 B(l), (b), (c), (d) & (2) and 123 C, (5), (7), (8), (18) and (20) of the Staff Regulations of the Corporation.

4. The Article of Charge No.2 against the petitioner was to the effect that it had been reported that he, the Administrative Officer, Central State Farm, Bahraich, did not take any interest in his work and responsibilities entrusted to him, and that the Management had already taken a decision to close down the Central State Farm, Bahraich which was being opposed in an agitative manner by the farmers and local villagers and their leaders, but the petitioner was not present to protect the interest of Corporation and safety of its employees and property and thus exhibited lack of devotion to duty and also acted in a manner which was against the established norms of official procedures, which tantamount to grave misconduct, and the petitioner had thus, as per the Article of Charge No.2, violated the provision of Regulation No. 123 B(1), (b), (c), 2 and 123 C(5) (6) (9) (18) & 20 of the Staff Regulations of the Corporation.

5. Vide office order dated 07.06.2012 bearing No. PF-1142/2006-GA, in view of the findings of the Inquiry Officer of the petitioner under scrutiny of charges levelled and proved against him, in view of the serious nature of misconducts committed by the petitioner, the Competent Disciplinary Authority concluded to the effect that the petitioner had committed grave and serious nature of misconducts, exhibited lack of devotion to duty, committed flagrant violation of rules and regulations of the Corporation by acting in a deliberate and grossly negligent manner and that his actions were not in the interest of the Corporation. Inter alia, the said order stated that the petitioner kept himself absent from duty without sanctioned leave and without sufficient grounds, and during the period of 195 days (calculated upto January, 2011), the petitioner remained absent for as many as 132 days for one reason or another and was absenting during the crucial period of agitation by the farmers and other local political parties, and as a result of the same, the security and safety of the farm and its personnel was endangered. The Disciplinary Authori