SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

Prayer

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to seek issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including Certiorari, for quashing the chargesheet dated 29.09.2021 (Annexure P-5), inquiry report dated 21.04.2022 (Annexure P-20), punishment order dated 25.10.2022 (Annexure P-22), and the review order dated 20.10.2023 (Annexure P-24), whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service, and for issuance of Mandamus directing reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, including arrears and interest of 12% P.A.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioner, Om Parkash, was appointed as a Technical Assistant (II) with the Food Corporation of India on 26.09.2014 and had, until the present controversy, discharged his duties without blemish. While posted at Sunam, Punjab, a complaint dated 21.05.2021 was lodged by one Sikanderjit Singh before the Vigilance Bureau alleging demand of illegal gratification by certain officials, including the petitioner, for facilitating the acceptance of rice consignments. Acting on the complaint, a trap was laid wherein an amount of ₹58,000/- was allegedly received; however, significantly, no recovery was effected from the petitioner and the amount was instead recovered from a private individual namely Paramjit Sharma, leading to the registration of an FIR.

2. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was placed under suspension, which was later revoked, and a common departmental chargesheet dated 29.09.2021 was issued against him along with other officers. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying all allegations and sought deferment of departmental proceedings in view of the pending criminal case. The gravamen of the charge rested on alleged irregularities in handling consignments dated 19.05.2021 and 20.05.2021; however, the record, including the dumping register, demonstrated that all consignments were duly processed and cleared on the same day, with no pendency attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner consistently maintained that the consignments in question were either duly accepted in accordance with prescribed procedure or were incomplete and therefore not liable for inspection under the governing instructions.

3. Despite the absence of any cogent evidence, and notwithstanding the fact that none of the prosecution witnesses supported the allegation of demand of bribe, the Enquiry Officer, by report dated 21.04.2022, returned a finding of “supervisory lapse” against the petitioner. The finding, as pleaded, was rendered in a mechanical and perfunctory manner, without proper appreciation of the petitioner’s defence or the material on record, and by erroneously conflating distinct charges. A representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected, culminating in the imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement on 25.10.2022. The statutory appeal and subsequent review petition were dismissed through non-speaking orders, thereby affirming the penalty.

4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the entire disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated for non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, including the absence of prior approval from the competent authority as mandated under the applicable instructions and Staff Regulations.

5. Aggrieved by the illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable actions culminating in his compulsory retirement, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashing of the impugned orders and consequential reliefs.

Contention