Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the petitioner, being an employee of Food Corporation of India, filled up the nomination form supported by affidavit to contest for the post of Pradhan of Village Panchayat Falenda, Block Bhilangana, Tehsil Ghansali, District Tehri Garhwal on 8.8.2008. He was elected as a Gram Pradhan and assumed charge on 13.8.2008 accordingly. His activities, inter alia, were objected to by calling his explanations time and again and ultimately, he was served with a chargesheet by Sri Sudeep Singh, the General Manager of the Corporation, by highlighting the activities of petitioner in the following words entailed in the confidential letter dated 24.9.2011 written by the General Manager to the Zonal Office (North), Noida, headed by the Executive Director: -

“It is a matter of record that Shri Rana is a habitual offender and has tried in past on many occasions to take office decorum and discipline in his hands and executing uncalled for conducts with senior officers. I am not repeating the details of his past conduct vis-à-vis the penalties imposed upon him, his transfer out of Region to J & K Region which is a matter of record. Almost every General Manager has communicated to Zonal Office (North)/Headquarters about his misdeeds and misconduct. Being a Regional Secretary of BKNK Sangh, he misuses the Union platform from time to time and manages such awkward situations taking every law of land in his hands.

His modus operandi is to instigate and provocate the other sincere and efficient officials against the Management and to terrorise them for his personal benefits. It can be judged from the fact that nobody was willing to investigate the complaint against him as mentioned at Para-1 above and it was lying pending for the last about three years because of his fear and vandalism.

Since, I have taken initiative to get investigated the complaint and charge sheeted him, I have a hunch that out of frustration, he will also start misinformation campaign against me just to malign my image by making anonymous/pseudonymous complaint(s) or by way of misusing the union platform to put pressure on me.”

2. The enquiry culminated in termination of petitioner’s services on 14.12.2011; such order is elaborate one and runs in as many as -8- pages (Annexure No.17 herein). Mr. Rana filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.1909 of 2011 and the Single Bench of this Court, by way of order dated 22.12.2011, disposed of the petition with liberty to Mr. Rana to prefer a departmental appeal. So, he accordingly moved such appeal which was dismissed by the order dated 13.3.2012 affirming the findings of the Enquiry Officer, meaning thereby, his dismissal was confirmed. The only relief provided to him was that the Executive Engineer (Appellate Authority) stopped recovery of any money from Mr. Rana as well as forfeiture of gratuity. Mr. Rana approached this Court once again in WPSS No.508 of 2012, wherein the order was passed by this Court on 20.4.2012, holding that apparently the petitioner is a workman and can easily raise an industrial dispute with regard to his alleged termination and thus, the petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available.

3. Instead of availing such remedy as per observation of this Court, petitioner filed a review petition on 26.10.2012 and the Reviewing Authority Mr. C. Vishwanathan, Managing Director, allowed the review and his termination was converted to a mild punishment as under : -

“Now, therefore, I, C. Viswanath, Managing Director being the Reviewing Authority, in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 74 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 take a lenient view and modify the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 14.12.2011 to the extent of a penalty of reduction to the minimum time scale of pay of AG II (Depot) upon Shri Virendra Singh Rana.

As regard regularization of the dismissal pe