IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
A.Ravi Chandra – Appellant
Versus
The Food Corporation of India and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 23913 of 2020
Decided on : 18-03-2024
(A) Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 - Regulations 54, 56, 57, and 58 - Disciplinary proceedings - The initiation of charge memo by an incompetent authority lacking jurisdiction vitiated the entire disciplinary proceedings, rendering the subsequent orders void ab initio. (Paras 8, 10, 12, 16)
(B) Jurisdiction - The authority competent to impose penalties must act within the four corners of the statute, and any action taken outside this jurisdiction is null and void. (Paras 10, 12, 16)
ORDER :
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr W.B.Srinivas appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel Dr P.Bhaskara Mohan, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as under:
3. PERUSED THE RECORD
A) The order impugned dated 18th September, 2015 of the General Manager (R) and Disciplinary Authority, Food Corporation of India, vide No.Vig.4(20)/2015, reads as under:
The undersigned proposes to hold an inquiry against Sri. A.Ravi Chandra, Manager (Elec.), under Regulation 58 of Section 5 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971. The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charge (Annexure-I). A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in support of the articles of charge is enclosed (Annexure-II). A list of documents by which and witness by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure-III and Annexure-I).
Sri. A.Ravi Chandra, Manager (Elec.), is directed to submit within 10 days (ten) of the receipt of this memorandum, written statement of his defense and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person.
He is informed that an inquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charge which are not admitted. He should therefore specifically admit or deny each article of charge.
Sri A.Ravi Chandra, Manager (Elec.), is further informed that if he does not submit his written statement of defense on or before the date specified in para two above or does not appear in person before the inquiry authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of Regulation 58 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, or orders or directions issued in pursuance of the said Regulation, the inquiry authority may hold the inquiry against him ex-parte.
Attention of Sri.A.Ravi Chandra, Manager (Elec.), is invited to Regulation 50 of Section 4 (conduct Regulations) of Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, under which no Food Corporation of India employee shall bring or attempt to bring any political or out-side influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interests in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Corporation. If any representation is received on his behalf from another person in respect of any matter dealt with in these proceedings, it will be presumed that Sri. A.Ravi Chandra, Manager (Elec.), is aware of such representation and that it has been made at his instance and action will be taken against him for violation of Regulation 50 of Section 4 (Conduct Regulations) of Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971.
The receipt of the memorandum may be acknowledged.
ANNEXURE - I
STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SRI A. RAVI CHANDRA MANAGER (EE) WORKING AT FCI, REGIONAL OFFICE, HYDERABAD.
Sri A.Ravi Chanda, Manager (EE), while working at
Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Private Limited and Others
Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. M.A. Majeed and Another reported in (2006) 1 ALD 823
The Berrium Chemicals Ltd and others v The Company Law Board and others reported in AIR 1967 SC 295
Disciplinary proceedings initiated by an incompetent authority are void ab initio, and penalties imposed without jurisdiction are null and unenforceable.
A disciplinary authority may initiate proceedings for penalties if designated in the service rules, but the authority to impose major penalties lies with a separate designated officer.
The Disciplinary Authority is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings for penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11, even if not competent to impose the latter penalties.
Disciplinary charge-sheet must be issued by authorized officer as per regulations; prior approval insufficient if not signed by Director on behalf of competent authority for Group ‘A’ employees, rend....
Charge memo for major penalty must be approved by competent disciplinary authority; issuance by minor penalty authority without approval vitiates proceedings.
Point of Law : It would not be safe to rely on the examination-in-chief recorded which was not subjected to cross examination before the summon was made.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to specified regulations; lack of defined misconduct requires clarity for fairness.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.