Imposition of multiple minor penalties under Regulation 60 of Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971

Kuldip Singh, J.

Petitioner Sh. R.P. Sharma, who retired as Technical Assistant Grade-I from Food Corporation of India, has impugned the order dated 27.04.2006 (Annexure P-3), order dated 09/10.08.2006 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 09.05.2013 (Annexure P-6), whereby vide order Annexure P-3 the penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages till superannuation was imposed and token recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- was ordered to be recovered from his salary/dues, which was affirmed in appeal, vide order dated 09/10.08.2006 (Annexure P-4) and in the review vide order dated 09.05.2013 (Annexure P-6) while affirming the penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages till superannuation, the recovery was reduced to Rs.2,00,000/-.

2. On 20.07.2004, the petitioner was issued a memorandum Annexure P-1 under Regulation 60 of Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (for short 'the Regulations') for imposition of minor penalty on the allegations that he accepted inferior quality of rice stocks during the year 1995-96, when posted at Bhuchu Centre. The rice stock accepted by the petitioner was got checked at the level of respondent No.3, during January 1998, i.e. after about two years of transfer of the petitioner from Bhuchu Centre, when the same were found to be deviated from the prescribed specifications. It is alleged that the exercise of checking of the quality of rice stock had been completed at the back of the petitioner and the checking report was prepared, showing the signatures of the petitioner on the said test checking report. The petitioner accepted the rice stock well within the specification to the satisfaction of his superiors, who at the time of acceptance of the stock and till the stay of the petitioner did not raise any finger of delinquency against him. Therefore, on the basis of ex parte checking, the petitioner could not be made liable. The petitioner also referred to the “Training Manual on Scientific methods of Storage of Foodgrains” issued by the Ministry of Food, Government of India, to claim that the rice stock could remain safe up to two years. In the present case, the rice stock remained stranded for more than two years. Therefore, the petitioner is not responsible for the same on the basis of said report. No liquidation of the rice stock in the timely manner was done, which ultimately downgraded the quality of the rice. It is stated that minor and major penalties are mentioned in Regulation 54 and the procedure for major penalty is mentioned in Regulation 58 and for minor penalty is in Regulation 60. The penalty of stoppage of down grading in time scales is a major punishment, as per Regulation 54. Therefore, the same could not be imposed without holding regular departmental inquiry.

3. In the reply, it was stated that the penalty of reduction in the time scale by three stages is not a major penalty. As per amended Regulation, the reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a period of not exceeding three years without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension is a minor penalty. Therefore, the procedure for minor penalty as provided at Regulation 60 was followed. It was stated that it was a job of the petitioner as Technical Assistant to accept the stock as per specifications of FCI but the stock was not maintained as per specifications of FCI. Hence, the order was passed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.

5. First of all, it is noticed that the Regulation 54 reproduced in the petition is incorrectly reproduced. It is in fact, unamended Regulation. It comes out that the said Regulation was amended vide Notification No.EP-36(1)/2000, dated 25.08.2000, the minor penalty mentioned therein is reproduced below:

“Minor Penalties:

(i) censure;

(ii) withholding of his promotion;

(iii) recovery from; his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss cause by him to the Corporation by negligence or b