2010 Supreme(P&H) 1107
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Ranjit Singh, J.
R.S.Panwar
Versus
Food Corporation Of India And Others
Regular Second Appeal No. 400 of 2008,
Decided On : MARCH 8, 2010
The illegality of imposing minor and major penalties in amalgam under the F.C.I (Staff) Regulation, 1971.
Headnote:
PENALTY - Employment Dispute - F.C.I (Staff) Regulation, 1971 - Regulation 31, 32, 32-A, 54 - The court discussed the misconduct defined under Regulation 32-A and the penalties under Regulation 54. It highlighted the illegality of imposing minor and major penalties in amalgam, referencing relevant case law. The court dismissed both appeals based on these discussions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between the Food Corporation of India and a retired Assistant Manager regarding the demotion and recovery of a sum of money imposed as a penalty for alleged delay in finalizing a transport contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the misconduct fell within the purview of Regulation 32-A and discussed the illegality of imposing minor and major penalties in amalgam, ultimately dismissing both appeals.
Issues: The issues tried in the suit included the legality of the orders passed by the defendants, entitlement of the plaintiff for a declaration, maintainability of the suit, and relief sought.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the misconduct fell within the purview of Regulation 32-A and discussed the illegality of imposing minor and major penalties in amalgam, referencing relevant case law.
Final Decision: Both appeals were dismissed by the court.
Ranjit Singh, J.
1 Food Corporation of India as well as retired Assistant Manager of the Corporation are in. separate Regular Second Appeals before this Court to impugn the same judgment. Accordingly, these two Regular Second Appeal Nos.400 of 2008 KS.Panwar v. Food Corporation of India, New Delhi and others), and 1898 of 2009 (Food Corporation of India, New Delhi and others v. R.S.Panwar) are being disposed of together through this common order. R.S.Panwar, Assistant Manager in F.C.I had filed a suit impugning the penalty of demotion awarded to him to the post of Assistant Manager at the lowest grade and so also recovery of Rs.50,000/- imposed on him. The plaintiff had joined the F.C.I as Assistant Grade I in 1970 was promoted as Assistant Manager on 5.5.1976 and as District Manager on 27.7.1993. F.C.I had advertised some tenders for handing over of transport contract on 27.1.1995. The tenders were opened and financial soundness and business competence of all the parties were to be verified. Tender submitted by one Pala Ram and Company was rejected being invalid for want of earnest money. Matter was referred to D.M., Rohtak to verify the financial soundness and business competence of all the parties to be done within a week. When no report was received, the plaintiff statedly sent telegraphic reminders on various dates. Ultimately, the status and business competence of the parties were received on 7.3.1995, which was after 30 days, it was reported that M/s Vinod Kumar and Company was not financially sound. M/s Ram Kishan and Company, Jind, though was reported to be financial sound but this was subject to verification of the property from Punjab. Dharambir was found not financial sound. Bhonsle Labour and Transport Company was found not having experience of S.T.C work and was also not financial sound. Prem Chand was also not found financial sound and the same was the case of M/s Labour Nandini Company. Prem Chand and Company and Ramesh and Company were found financially sound.
2 Due to this incomplete information, the validity of the contract, which was upto 12.3.1995, had to be extended upto 30.4.1995 and the parties were informed accordingly. Reminders were again sent to D.M., Rohtak. Ultimately, D.M., Rohtak, sent a report on 6.4.1995 but the same, as per the plaintiff-appellant, was put up to him only on 21.4.1995. As per the plaintiff, the file was withdrawn without his knowledge on 24.4.1995. The Committee ultimately was constituted to finalise the tender. The plea accordingly is that appellant-plaintiff can not be held responsible for delay, if any. Records reveal that a lot of complaints were received that respondent No.4 had favoured a particular party while awarding the tender for handling the transport contract, although lower rates were quoted by other parties. Matter was referred to the Vigilance Wing of F.C.I. ultimately, leading to issuance of memo of charge sheet to the plaintiff-appellant on 18.5.1996. He was accused of delaying the finalisation process, leading to loss of Rs.16,65,570/- to the Corporation and was accordingly charged under Regulations 31 and 32 of the F.C.I (Staff) Regulation, 1971.
3 The plaintiff-appellant had submitted reply to the charge sheet. The same was considered unsatisfactory. Enquiry Officer was appointed to go into the allegations, who submitted the report on 24.5.1996. On 4.10.1996, the plaintiff-appellant was asked to give his comment on the enquiry report, which he submitted on 10.10.1996. The same was also found unsatisfactory and accordingly he was imposed the punishment of demotion to the Post of Assistant Manager to the lowest grade applicable to the said post with immediate effect, coupled with recovery of Rs.50,000/- as a token for the loss caused to the Corporation.
4 The plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order on the ground that the punishment was not in accordance with law. The appeal was rejected on 9.5.1997 and accordingly the orders were challenged