The court has the authority to review disciplinary actions and modify the punishment if found disproportionate, considering the circumstances and historical context of the case.

( 1 ) THIS petition has a chequered history. The petitioner initially joined as Godown Clerk in the ministry of Food and Agriculture, Department of Food and was subsequently absorbed in Food corporation of India in which he earned promotion as Assistant Manager (Depot) and came to be posted at Etah on 12. 7. 1982. On 25. 7. 1984 he joined as Assistant Manager (Depot) on G. A. P. storage at Airstrip, Lalitpur having storage capacity of one lakh metric tone under the District manager, Food Corporation of India. Jhansi. On 1. 10. 1985 he proceeded on leave on receipt of a message about serious condition of his mother who died on 4. 10. 1985 at Tundla (Agra) and was on leave up to 30. 10. 1985 and joined his duties on 31. 10. 1985 after expiry of the leave period. It appears that there was heavy rains during October, 1985 in which the wheat stored at the airstrip, Lalitpur was damaged resulting in huge financial losses to the Corporation. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 12. 4. 1986 and on 10. 4. 1987 he was served with the charge sheet dated 3. 3. 1987. The charges against the petitioner were as under :

"shri N. K. Jain. Assistant Manager (Depot) while posted and functioning as such at Airstrip, lalitpur during 1984-85 failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and to serve the corporation honestly and sincerely inasmuch as he failed to supervise depot operations, i. e. . maintenance of stocks account, gunny and dead stock account, submission of monthly stock accounts and other periodical returns, protection of stocks from losses and damages during storage and in preservation of the stocks. Due to his criminal negligency and failures, the corporation has suffered huge financial losses on account of storage loss/shortages and damages to the wheat stock/gunny stored at Airstrip, Lalitpur. The above acts and failures has also caused damages to the image of the Corporation in public and loss of national property. Thus, contravened Regulations 31 and 32 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff ). Regulations, 1971. "

( 2 ) THE petitioner denied the charges and pleaded that the charges were vague, indefinite and factually incorrect : The basic requirements were not fulfilled in relation to posting of require number of staff and entrusting of responsibilities ; the essential facilities. i. e. , office accommodation, steps for keeping dead articles and other amenities were not at all provided to the petitioner and these shortcomings vitally affected day-to-day work ; gunnies, ropes, nets and covers were not supplied at the needy hours rather all these accessories were arranged when loss to the foodgrains had already occurred and that the stock was arbitrarily shown under free sale scheme and responsibility of watch and ward was not determined. The charged officer (C. O.), i. e. , the petitioner demanded certain documents on a prescribed proforma submitted to the enquiry officer with a view to enabling him to prepare proper defence. Some of the documents demanded by him were not supplied and the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 31. 12. 1987 holding that "proper supervision was not being conducted by C. O. wilfully. " The enquiry officer came to the conclusion that "there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that damages were caused due to stacks left fully uncovered/partially covered. Although sufficient polythene covers were available at Airstrip. Lalitpur. As per job description, it was the duty of the C. O. to ensure that covers were properly mounted on the stacks and laced after the days operation. " In the ultimate conclusion, the enquiry officer held that "although there were lapses on the part of the supervisory officer also but with regard to charges under Article 1 against the C. O. without repeating facts and analysis are proved. " Relying upon the report of the enquiry officer, the punishing authority dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 29.