IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary authority must establish clear misconduct before imposing penalties; mere presumption is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. G. K. Gupta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. K. Singh, learned standing counsel, Food Corporation of India(FCI), appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present writ petition, has presented a challenge to an order, dated 28.02.2020, issued by the disciplinary authority imposing upon the petitioner, a penalty of recovery of Rs. 90,000/- from his salary in 10 equal instalments on conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding so instituted against him. The petitioner had also assailed an order, dated 11.07.2023, passed by the appellate authority, rejecting his appeal in the matter.

3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under:

The petitioner, herein, was posted as the Shed Assistant at Food Storage Depot, Bindukuri, under the Food Corporation of India(FCI), Divisional Office, Tezpur. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner functioned as a Shed Assistant of Shed No. 4 w.e.f. 11.04.2017 to 12.10.2017, and had also functioned in the same capacity in Shed No. 5 w.e.f. 11.04.2017 to 31.10.2017.

On loss being assessed on account of shortage of foodgrains stored in the above-noted Sheds wherein, the petitioner was discharging his duties as Shed Assistant, a memorandum of charge, dated 22.07.2019, under the provisions of Regulation 60 of the Food Corporation of India(Staff) Regulation, 1971, came to be issued against him.

It was alleged against the petitioner in the said memorandum of charge, that during his tenure as the Shed Assistant of Sheds No. 4 & 5 of Food Storage Depot, Bindukuri, under the Food Corporation of India(FCI), Divisional Office, Tezpur, unjustified storage loss had occasioned and the value of such loss was assessed in respect of the said Sheds at Rs. 23,73,135.74.

The petitioner on receipt of the said memorandum of charge, submitted his written statement on 05.08.2019, and therein, by highlighting the short tenure for which he was engaged for the works of the Sheds, in question, as Shed Assistant, had also contended that he was not in any manner responsible for the loss so occasioning of the stored foodgrains in the Sheds during the short period he had functioned as the Shed Assistant in the said Sheds.

The said written statement of the petitioner was considered by the disciplinary authority and thereafter, on noticing the contentions raised by the petitioner in his written statement, proceeded to hold that the same does not justify the loss so occasioning in the said Sheds during his short tenure as the Shed Assistant of the said two Sheds.

Basing on the said conclusion; the disciplinary authority, vide order, dated 28.02.2020, proceeded to impose the penalty of recovery of Rs.90,000/- in 10 equal monthly instalments against the petitioner, herein.

The petitioner, thereafter, on 04.05.2020, preferred an appeal against the said order, dated 28.02.2020, passed by the disciplinary authority. The said appeal of the petitioner on consideration, came to be rejected by the appellate authority vide order, dated 11.07.2023.

4. Being aggrieved by the order, dated 28.02.2020, as well as the order, dated 11.07.2023; the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding with a further prayer that the consideration so made in respect of the petitioner by the selection committee for his promotion to the next higher grade/cadre kept in ‘sealed cover’, be directed to be opened and the petitioner be promoted with all consequential benefits.

5. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts as noticed hereinabove; has submitted that the disciplinary authority in the order, dated 28.02.2020, had not brought on record any material to connect the petitioner, herein, to the allegations so levelled against him vide memorandum of charge, dated 22.07.2019.

6. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel, has further submitted that the disciplinary