Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.
Jayanta Mohan Singha, S/o. Merachaw Singha – Petitioner
Versus
The Food Corporation Of India, Represented By The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.4423 of 2012
Decided On : 22-05-2024
Misappropriation - Employment Dispute - FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 - Regulation 56, Regulation 59 (4), Regulation 54 (viii) - The court discussed the charges against the petitioner, the findings of the enquiry officer, and the imposition of the penalty by the Disciplinary Authority under the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971. The court highlighted the lack of specific findings of misappropriation or theft, the absence of reasons for the extreme punishment of removal from service, and the policy decision of the competent authority not to recover losses without proof of theft, pilferage, or malafides.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of FCI, was charged with causing shortage of food grains and gunny bags. The Disciplinary Authority removed the petitioner from service and forfeited his gratuity based on the findings of the enquiry officer. The petitioner appealed, but the appellate authority upheld the penalty. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were no specific findings of misappropriation or theft against the petitioner. It noted the lack of reasons for the extreme punishment of removal from service and the absence of procedural irregularity in the decision-making process. The court also highlighted the FCI's policy decision not to recover losses without proof of theft, pilferage, or malafides.
Issues: The issues involved the charges against the petitioner, the findings of the enquiry officer, the imposition of the penalty by the Disciplinary Authority, and the absence of specific findings of misappropriation or theft.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the punishment of removal appeared to be harsh and disproportionate, and altered it to compulsory retirement. It emphasized the lack of specific findings of misappropriation or theft, the absence of reasons for the extreme punishment, and the FCI's policy decision not to recover losses without proof of theft, pilferage, or malafides.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, altering the punishment of removal to compulsory retirement and directing the release of all benefits, including gratuity, to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel for FCI.
2. The petitioner before this Court was employed as an employee of the Food Corporation of India (herein after referred to as the FCI in short) at the relevant point in time where he was holding the charge of Assistant Grade-II. The petitioner was recruited in services of the FCI in the year 1977 and had completed about 34 years of unblemished service. While he was serving as an Assistant Grade-II, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet/memorandum by the General Manager(R), FCI, Regional Office, Guwahati vide No. V&S.21(11)/2010/9875 dated 23.10.2010, whereby the petitioner was charged with causing shortage of about 3944/4077 bags which amounted to 2021.10 quintals of food grains and also shortage of 68 numbers of Gunny bags from Shed no.2 during July, 2010 and September, 2010 respectively.
3. The petitioner in his reply denied all the allegations and charges made against him with a prayer to hear him in person. The Disciplinary Authority being dissatisfied with the replies submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to institute an enquiry against the charges made against the petitioner by appointing an Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was placed under suspension. The Enquiry Officer upon conducting the enquiry submitted the report on 30.50.2011 holding that the articles of charges against the petitioner have been held to be proved. A copy of the enquiry report was duly furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted his written reply stating that the Enquiry Officer arrived at the conclusion without proper application of mind and without assigning proper reasons which is contrary to the procedure laid down. He further stated that the charges are held to be proved without any direct oral or documentary evidence and by placing reliance only on circumstantial evidence based on the presumption. The disciplinary authority considered the findings in the enquiry report and in exercise of powers conferred under the Regulation of 56 read with Regulation 59 (4) and Regulation 54 (viii) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, ‘Removed’ the petitioner from services of the Corporation with immediate effect and with a further direction of forfeiture of his gratuity and to treat the suspension period of the petitioner with effect from 06.08.2010 to 29.11.2010 as ‘dies non’.
4. Against the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, namely, the respondent no.2 praying for revoking the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, as the same was harsh and disproportionate. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority. However, it is stated that the copy of the order dated 27.07.2012 passed by the appellate authority had not been served on the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations brought against the petitioner are totally uncalled for as the petitioner had rendered unblemished services for about 34 years in the FCI and he had discharged his duties with full responsibilities that was bestowed upon him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no charge of misappropriation was brought against the petitioner and consequently, the Enquiry Officer also did not arrive at any finding of misappropriation against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that during the enquiry proceedings no loss was alleged to have been caused by the petitioner. The evidence adduced by the petitioner were not given due consideration by the Enquiry Officer and consequently, the same were not properly analysed before concluding the enquiry. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the peti
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the imposition of punishment must be based on specific findings and reasons, and the FCI's policy decision not to recover losses without proof....
Disciplinary authority must establish clear misconduct before imposing penalties; mere presumption is insufficient.
The disciplinary authority must establish a direct connection between the employee's actions and the alleged misconduct, failing which penalties cannot be imposed.
The Disciplinary Authority can order further enquiry only if serious defects exist in the initial enquiry; it cannot do so after a finding of exoneration.
: Service – Punishment - once the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinque....
Procedural violations in disciplinary actions render penalties invalid; accountability for storage losses must correspond to actual responsibility and adherence to regulations.
The imposition of a penalty without establishing misconduct or connection to alleged losses violates procedural regulations and lacks evidentiary support.
Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice; absence of adequate evidence and procedural compliance renders such actions void.
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
