Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 1085
2012 (2) RCR(Civ) 209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
K. KANNAN, J.
M.S. Sapra - Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, and others - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No.10966 and 11623 of 1989 (O&M)
Decided on: 27.04.2011
A.K. Behal - Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, and others - Respondents
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.10966 of 1989.
Mr. G.S. Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.11623 of 1989.
Mr. B.S. Wasu, Advocate, for the respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to support findings in departmental proceedings, and the necessity for fairness in the procedure and adherence to the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Misappropriation - Loss of 200 bags of foodgrains - Food Corporation of India - [Domestic Enquiry Act, 1945, Section 4(1)(b); Food Corporation of India Act, 1964, Section 13(1)] - The court analyzed the charges of misappropriation and dereliction of duty against the petitioners in the context of the alleged loss of 200 bags of paddy. The court emphasized the lack of evidence to support the ultimate finding of the loss, highlighting the necessity for physical verification or examination of witnesses to establish the alleged loss. The court also addressed the issue of non-supply of the Enquiry Officer's report, citing relevant legal principles and precedents. The court ultimately quashed the impugned orders and reinstated the petitioner in one case, while remitting the issue of punishment for re-examination in the other case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of serious misconduct resulting in the loss of 200 bags of foodgrains from the Food Corporation of India. A domestic enquiry led to orders of removal from service and other punishments, which were challenged in the writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to support the ultimate finding of the loss of 200 bags of paddy, and the non-supply of the Enquiry Officer's report prejudiced one of the petitioners. The court quashed the impugned orders and reinstated one petitioner, while remitting the issue of punishment for re-examination in the other case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the management had proved the loss of 200 bags of paddy, and the court also addressed the issue of non-supply of the Enquiry Officer's report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for evidence to support findings in departmental proceedings, and highlighted the requirement for fairness in the procedure and the principles of natural justice. The court also cited relevant legal principles and precedents regarding the non-supply of the Enquiry Officer's report.
Final Decision: One writ petition was allowed, and the punishment meted out to the petitioner in the other writ petition was set aside and remitted to the disciplinary authority for re-examination.
K. Kannan, J.
1. Both the cases are inter-related arising out of a same transaction. The writ petitioners had been named as having been guilty of serious misconduct resulting in the loss of 200 bags of foodgrains from the Food Corporation of India. The petitioner in CWP No.10966 of 1989 was an Assistant Grade-I in depot of the Food Corporation of India at the relevant time and the petitioner in CWP No.11623 of 1989 was a subordinate under him. In a surprise inspection carried out by Shri S.S.Grewal, Assistant Manager (Vigilance), it was alleged that 200 bags of paddy PR106 variety were found missing and articles of charges had been levelled against both the petitioners.
2. In the charges issued to Mr.M.S.Sapra, the petitioner in CWP No.10966 of 1989, the principal allegations were that (i) he had misappropriated 200 bags of paddy, (ii) he had not verified the entries made on 24.01.1984 in the stock wise and shed wise registers, and (iii) he had deliberately showed himself as absent on that day by making corrections in the official records. The charges against Shri A.K.Behal, who is the petitioner in CWP No.11623 of 1989, were substantially the same in relation to the loss of grains and it was stated that (i) he had misappropriated 200 bags of paddy and (ii) he had not produced inward and outward gate passes at ARDC Kilaraipur but remained absent on duty from 16.04.1986.
3. A domestic enquiry was constituted and on the basis of the report which was, however, not communicated to the petitioners, the disciplinary authority passed orders of removal from service and other punishments. There had been an appeal and review against these decisions and on a direction from this Court through a writ petition filed by Mr. M.S.Sapra, the authority was directed to dispose of review application filed by Mr. Sapra. On a review so undertaken by the competent authority from the original order of removal from service, the findings had been modified exonerating him from the charges of misappropriation and for alleged alteration of official records and found him guilty only for one charge namely that he had not verified the stock wise and shed wise entries that had resulted in the loss to the Food Corporation of India. In so far as the case relating to Mr. Behal was concerned, the charges as found already as proved continued and while Mr. Behal was dismissed from service, Mr. Sapra had been served with three types of punishments: (i) reversion from the post of AG-I(D) to AG-II(D) in the minimum of times scales of 380-640, and (ii) forfeiture of seniority and fixation of the same in the lowest position in the seniority list of AG-II(D). Even apart from the above two punishments, he had also been inflicted with the treatment that from the date of dismissal till the date when he rejoined the duty, it be considered as non duty period. The findings entered by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are challenged in both the writ petitions.
4. The focal area of concern is whether the management had proved that there had been a loss of 200 bags of paddy as charges against both the employees. If the contention of the petitioners were to be accepted that there had been no theft at all or at any rate the said fact had not been established, then it will have immediately a bearing on the ancillary charges of whether there was any dereliction of duty in not maintaining the registers by Mr.Sapra. The issue that stands for consideration immediately is whether there had been a proof of the charge of the loss of 200 bags of paddy.
5. It is on the alleged proof of the loss of paddy that a punishment of removal from service has been inflicted on the petitioner Mr. Behal in CWP No.11623 of 1989. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out to the fact that the alleged loss was said to have been detected by Mr. Grewal when he found that there was a discrepancy between two registers namely, the stock wise, shed wise and muster ledger and da
