IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

105 AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 20.04.2026 AMIT KUMAR .....PETITIONER VERSUS FCI AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present: Mr. D.S Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Paras Chander Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Gurinder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Karambir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1- FCI.

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, inquiry report dated 06.01.2022, order dated 17.05.2022, and the appellate and review orders dated 23.11.2022 and 06.06.2025, 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.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioner, appointed as Manager (Depot) with the respondent Corporation on 21.05.2012, served without blemish until an FIR dated 21.05.2021 came to be registered alleging demand of illegal gratification in connection with acceptance of rice consignments. Notably, even at the stage of grant of bail on 30.06.2021, it was recorded that no specific role, demand, or recovery was attributable to the petitioner.

3. Pursuant thereto, a common chargesheet dated 29.09.2021 was issued alleging, inter alia, failure to process consignments dated 19.05.2021 and 20.05.2021 and involvement in the alleged bribe. The petitioner consistently maintained that both consignments had been duly weighed and processed within time, and that the ultimate acceptance or rejection fell within the domain of the Quality Control staff, as per the governing instructions and guidelines.

4. During the departmental enquiry, the complainant himself attributed the demand and acceptance of money to other officials, and witnesses corroborated the petitioner’s absence at the relevant time. The enquiry report, however, proceeded to hold the charges as “proved” essentially on the petitioner’s supervisory position, despite recording that no demand or acceptance of bribe was attributable to him.

5. Acting upon such findings, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on 17.05.2022. The statutory appeal and review were dismissed in a mechanical manner, without addressing the petitioner’s core submissions or the evidentiary inconsistencies, culminating in the rejection of the review on 06.06.2025 (P-25).

6. Hence, this petition seeking quashing of the chargesheet, enquiry report, and consequential orders, along with reinstatement and consequential benefits.

Contentions On the behalf of petitioner

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire disciplinary action is vitiated by perversity of findings and patent non-application of mind. It is contended that the foundational allegation of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification stands wholly unsubstantiated, inasmuch as neither the complainant nor any witness has attributed any such role to the petitioner, rather, the material on record consistently points towards other officials. Even the order granting bail records absence of any demand or recovery from the petitioner, a circumstance which, though not determinative, lends credence to his defence.

8. It is further argued that the charge relating to non-processing of consignments is misconceived, as the petitioner had discharged his limited role of weighing and forwarding the consignments, whereas the final acceptance or rejection lay exclusively with the Quality Control staff, in terms of binding instructions. The enquiry officer, however, has proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the petitioner’s supervisory role, thereby fastening liability in the absence of any statutory or factual basis.

9. Learned counsel urged t