The disciplinary authority must conduct an inquiry before imposing penalties unless it can demonstrate that it was unnecessary, and such opinion must be documented.

Order :

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.)

1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 29.09.2006 passed by the respondents by which the petitioner has been punished with penalty of Censure and a recovery of amount to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs from his Leave Encashment dues.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge- sheet under Regulation 60 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations of 1971”) was served with certain charges on the petitioner on 22.09.2006 just seven days before his retirement i.e. on 30.09.2006 for the charges pertaining to year 2002-04. Learned counsel submits that two days time was granted to the petitioner for filing reply and without conducting any enquiry as per the requirement of Regulation 60-B of the Regulations of 1971 straightway the petitioner has been punished with the aforesaid punishment order. Learned counsel submits that the order was passed in a hasty manner without taking into account the defence/reply submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that unless and until an enquiry is conducted against the petitioner, he cannot be held guilty for any misconduct, hence under these circumstances, the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India versus Sarat Chandra Goswami reported in 2014 (13) SCC 211

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has been punished with minor penalty and not a major penalty, hence under these circumstances, the respondents were not supposed to conduct an enquiry. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of the charge- sheet and reply submitted by the respondents, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of punishment holding the petitioner guilty and, accordingly, he was punished with penalty of censure and a recovery of amount of Rs.5 Lakhs from his Leave Encashment dues. Learned counsel submits that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was appealable before the statutory authority but without availing the alternative statutory remedy, the petitioner has straightway approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

4. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment order was passed by the Managing Director and the appellate authority was the Chairman and at that relevant time the same person was holding both the aforementioned posts, hence under these circumstances, there was no logic in filing the appeal against the same authority, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the record indicates that the due date of retirement of the petitioner was 30.09.2006 and just seven days before his retirement, a charge-sheet in question was served upon the petitioner under Regulation 60 of the Regulations of 1971 on 22.09.2006 pertaining to the charges occurring in the year 2002- 04. It appears that the respondents were sleeping over the matter and they did not take any action against the petitioner at the relevant time and they woke up at the fag end of the service of petitioner, i.e. just seven days before the retirement of the petitioner. The memorandum of charge-sheet was served on 22.09.2006 with various charges against which the petitioner submitted a detailed representation with regard to his defence on the said charges but without holding any enquiry as contemplated under Regulation 60-B of the Regulations of 1971 straightway the punishment order was passed by the respondents holding the petitioner