Disciplinary proceedings cannot be based on mere suspicion or conjectures; findings must be supported by tangible evidence. Furthermore, applying the Doctrine of Equality, co-delinquents facing identical charges and evidence must be treated consistently; singling one out for punishment without distinguishing factors violates Articles 14 and 16.

(1). The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 10.05.2013 (Annexure P9), order dated 13/16.06.2014 (Annexure P11) and order dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure P14) passed by the respondents vide which recovery equivalent to reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years without cumulative effect has been imposed and the said punishment order has been upheld by the appellate and reviewing authorities.

Facts

(2). The petitioners are the sons - legal representatives of deceased Bant Singh who had earlier filed CWP-24614-2015 which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh vide order dated 02.12.2015 (Annexure 1A) and since unfortunately passed away on 18.11.2015.

(3). The deceased Bant Singh joined the respondent-Corporation as Technical Assistant Gr-III on 19.08.1976 and thereafter gained promotions upto Technical Assistant Gr.I on 31.12.2009. Respondent No.4 issued a memo dated 09.01.2012 under Regulation 58 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, (in short, the 1971 Regulations) for imposition of major penalty upon the Bant Singh and other officials alleging that they were responsible for tampering original storage loss of 0.88%; for accepting more than 15 consignments than what was permitted as per instructions; for violating the criteria of FIFO in July, 2011 and for making cuttings/over-writing in TA wise analysis register.

(4). An enquiry was conducted into the said allegations against Bant Singh and others and without appreciating the evidence on record, the charges were partly proved against Bant Singh vide enquiry report dated 02.02.2013 (Annexure P6) and consequently, respondent No.4 without considering the pleas of Bant Singh as made in the representation, passed the impugned order dated 10.05.2013 (Annexure P9) imposing upon him the penalty of recovery equivalent to reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect.

(5). The father of the petitioner preferred appeal under Regulation 69/70 of the 1971 Regulations before respondent No.3 on 25.06.2013 and in the meantime, the petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2013. The appellate authority granted meager relief by modifying the penalty from “recovery equivalent to reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect” to “recovery equivalent to reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years without cumulative effect” vide impugned order dated 13/16.06.2014 (Annexure P11). Bant Singh thereafter invoked Regulation 74 of the 1971 Regulations and filed review petition before MD of FCI – respondent NO.2, however that petition too was dismissed vide order dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure P14).

(6). Hence this writ petition.

Contentions of the petitioner

(7). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegation is against manipulation of moisture entries in the storage loss statement for rice stocks liquidated in July 2011, where custody and safe-keeping of stocks (bags and weight) admittedly lay with identified depot officials, who were the real custodians and actual beneficiaries of any unjustified storage loss. The disciplinary authority itself notes that the cuttings in moisture figures “would have been detected at the time of MIR of