SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 5474

PATNA HIGH COURT
Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
The Food Corporation Of india – Appellant
Versus
Ozair Alam – Respondent
L.P.A/1581/2019



The phrase 'at any time' in Regulation 74 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, does not give the competent authority an unlimited time frame to exercise its review power. A reasonable time limit of three years should be applied to the exercise of review power under Regulation 74.

Headnote:

REVIEW OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (STAFF) REGULATIONS, 1971 - REGULATION 74 - INTERPRETATION - REASONABLE TIME LIMIT

Fact of the Case:

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) initiated disciplinary proceedings against three employees (respondents) and imposed a penalty of censure on them in 2014. In 2019, the competent authority, exercising its power under Regulation 74 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, reviewed the disciplinary authority's order and set aside the penalty of censure, remanding the matter for inquiry.

Finding of the Court:

The Patna High Court dismissed the appeal filed by FCI, upholding the Single Judge's order that the reviewing authority cannot exercise its power under Regulation 74 beyond a reasonable period of time. The court held that the phrase 'at any time' in Regulation 74 cannot be interpreted to give the competent authority an unlimited time frame to exercise its review power.

Issues: 1. Whether the reviewing authority under Regulation 74 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, can exercise its power beyond a reasonable period of time?2. What is the scope and interpretation of the phrase 'at any time' in Regulation 74?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Regulation 74 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, empowers the competent authority to review disciplinary orders 'at any time.'2. However, the court held that the phrase 'at any time' cannot be interpreted to give the competent authority an unlimited time frame to exercise its review power.3. The court reasoned that a reasonable time limit is necessary to provide certainty and finality to disciplinary proceedings and to prevent arbitrary or capricious exercise of power by the reviewing authority.4. The court held that a reasonable time limit of three years, similar to the limitation period for filing a civil suit under the Civil Procedure Code, should be applied to the exercise of review power under Regulation 74.

Final Decision: The Patna High Court dismissed the appeal filed by FCI, upholding the Single Judge's order that the reviewing authority cannot exercise its power under Regulation 74 beyond a reasonable period of time.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1581 of 2019

In

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3325 of 2019

======================================================

1.

The Food Corporation Of India through the Chairman Cum Managing

Director, 16-20 Barakhambha Lane New Delhi.

2.

The Chairman Cum Managing Director, 16-20 Barakhambha Lane New

Delhi.

3.

The Executive Director (East Zone) Food Corporation of India, 10-A,

Middleton Row, Koklkata-71

4.

The General Manager (Region) Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,

Arunchal Building, Patna

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

Ozair Alam S/o Late Habibur Rahman Resident of Mohalla- R.K. Nagar,

New Masjid, F.C.I. Road, Phulwarisharif, P.s.- Phulwarisharif, District-

Patna

2.

Atul Prasad Sharma S/o Late Bhagwat Singh Resident of Village- Anandpur,

P.s.- Bihta, District- Patna

3.

Sanjeev Kumar Singh S/o Vinod Prasad Singh Resident of Village-

Murgiachak, P.s.- Islampur, District- Nalanda

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s

:

Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, Advocate

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr. Mukesh Kumar No. 1, Advocate

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 11-01-2023

Re: I.A. No. 1 of 2020

Heard I.A. No. 1 of 2020 for condonation of delay of

about 44 days in filing L.P.A.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1581 of 2019 dt.11-01-2023

2/4

2. For the reasons stated in the application and affidavit,

delay is condoned. I.A. stands allowed.

3. The present L.P.A. is filed against the order of the

learned Single Judge dated 16.09.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No.

3325 of 2019. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were subjected to

disciplinary proceedings and it was concluded in imposition of

penalty of censure on 07.03.2014. The competent authority

exercised power under Regulation 74 of the Food Corporation of

India (Staff ) Regulation, 1971. Regulation 74 reads as under:

“74. Review:

(1) *(Notwithstanding anything contained in these

regulations, the Board may, at any time either on its own

motion or otherwise, call for the records of any inquiry

and review any order made under these regulations), and

(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or

(b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty

imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no

penalty has been imposed; or

(c) Remit the case to the authority which made the order

or to any other authority directing such authority to make

such further inquiry as it may consider proper in the

circumstances of the case; or

(d) pass such other orders as it may deem fit;

**Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any

penalty shall be made by the reviewing authority unless

the employee concerned has been given a reasonable

opportunity of making a representation against the

penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any

of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of

Underline Supplied

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1581 of 2019 dt.11-01-2023

3/4

Regulation 54 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the

order sought to be viewed to any of the penalties

specified in those clauses; no such penalty shall be

imposed except after an inquiry in the manner laid down

in Regulation 58.

(2) No proceeding for review shall be commenced until

after:

i) the expiry of the period of limitation for an appeal, or

ii) the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has

been preferred.

(3) An application for review shall be dealt with in the

same manner as if it were an appeal under these

regulations.

(4) Powers similar to those specified in clause(1) above

may be exercised by the (Chairman)*, Managing

Director, Zonal Manager (Additional)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top