Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Ankit Kumar S/o Sri Gopal Sharan – Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director FCI And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 4606 of 2023
Decided on : 18-12-2024
(A) Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971 - Regulation 60 - Disciplinary proceedings - The petitioner challenged the penalty of recovery imposed by the disciplinary authority for alleged storage loss. The authority failed to establish a direct connection between the petitioner and the alleged loss, violating procedural requirements. The Circular dated 12.02.2008 stipulates that no recovery should be made without proving theft or malafide. The penalty was set aside, and recovery ordered to be refunded. (Paras 32, 33, 36)
(B) Procedural Fairness - The disciplinary authority must record findings on each imputation of misconduct, which was not done in this case, rendering the penalty unsustainable. (Paras 26, 32)
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. 1,80,000/- from his salary in 12 equal installments. The petitioner has also assailed an order, dated 11.07.2023, passed by the appellate authority upholding the order, dated 28.02.2020.
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 in-charge of Shed No. 4 of Food Storage Depot, Bindukuri, under the Food Corporation of India(FCI), Divisional Office, Tezpur, w.e.f. May, 2016. The petitioner was also w.e.f. 11.04.2017, required to take charge of Shed No. 5.
A disciplinary proceeding came to be instituted against the petitioner, herein, and 3(three) others, under Regulation 58 of the FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1971, basing on an allegation of huge unjustified storage loss occasioning in the Sheds under his charge.
The petitioner on receipt of the memorandum of charge, dated 22.07.2019, proceeded to submit his written statement in the matter on 05.08.2019. In the said written statement, the petitioner while denying the allegation so levelled against him, had set-out contentions justifying the loss so occasioning in Sheds No. 4 & 5 during the period, he was the in-charge thereof.
It was also projected by the petitioner, herein, that the said loss was on account of diverse climatic conditions and also water logging in the Sheds and blockage thereof. It was further projected that the loss so occasioning on account of water logging was never accounted for, while estimating the loss so occasioning of the foodgrains stored in the Sheds, in question, under his charge.
The disciplinary authority on receipt of the said written statement from the petitioner and on consideration of the same, was pleased vide communication, dated 06.12.2019, to drop the proceeding so instituted against the petitioner under Regulation 58 of the Food Corporation of India(Staff) Regulation, 1971. Vide the said communication, dated 06.12.2019; it was further directed that the proceeding would not be instituted against the petitioner under the provisions of Regulation 60 of the Food Corporation of India(Staff) Regulation, 1971.
It is to be noted here that the proceeding contemplated under Regulation 58 of the Food Corporation of India(Staff) Regulation, 1971, is for imposition of a major penalty and that so contemplated under Regulation 60 of the Regulation of 1971, is for imposition of a minor penalty.
In terms of the said communication, dated 06.12.2019, a fresh Memorandum, dated 06.12.2019, came to be issued to the petitioner, herein, instituting the proceeding against him under Regulation 60 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971.
The allegations so levelled against the petitioner was to the effect that while working as in-charge of Sheds No. 4 & 5 of the Food Storage Depot, Bindukuri, under the Food Corporation of India(FCI), Divisional Office, Tezpur, during the period w.e.f. May, 2016, till 12.02.2017[Shed No. 4], and w.e.f. 11.04.2017 till 31.10.2017[Shed No. 5]; a financial loss occasioning to the Food Corporation of India(FCI) authorities to the tune of Rs. 23,73,135.74 in-as-much as the petitioner, herein, had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion towards his duty to serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully. It is further alleged that the loss so occasioning was unjustified.
The petitioner, herein, on receipt of the said memorandum of charge, dated 06.12.2019, vide his written statement, dated 18.12.2019; reiterated the contentions so made by him in the earlier written statemen
AI
The disciplinary authority must establish a direct connection between the employee's actions and the alleged misconduct, failing which penalties cannot be imposed.
Disciplinary authority must establish clear misconduct before imposing penalties; mere presumption is insufficient.
The imposition of a penalty without establishing misconduct or connection to alleged losses violates procedural regulations and lacks evidentiary support.
Procedural violations in disciplinary actions render penalties invalid; accountability for storage losses must correspond to actual responsibility and adherence to regulations.
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 findings lacking substantial evidence warrant quashing of related proceedings under constitutional review principles.
Retired employees cannot be penalized with recovery from retiral dues without prior disciplinary proceedings being initiated during service, upholding procedural compliance under relevant regulations....
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
