Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
BHAWANI SINGH, SHANTANU KEMKAR
SADASHIV SHIVRAM GARUD - Appellant
Versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA - Respondents
L. P. A. 735 Of 2002
Decided On : 04/25/2003
DELAY - DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - Prevention of Corruption Act, Indian Penal Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 5(l)(d), 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code - The court quashed the departmental enquiry/memorandum of chargesheet against the appellants, citing unreasonable delay, lack of involvement in the alleged misconduct, and violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, employees of the Food Corporation of India, were charged with grave misconduct related to an incident in 1987-1988. The departmental enquiry was initiated after a significant delay, and the appellants challenged the initiation through writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were not involved in the alleged misconduct and that the initiation of the departmental enquiry after a prolonged delay was unjust, unreasonable, and prejudicial to the appellants' interests. The court also noted that the delay in holding the departmental enquiry violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issues were the delay in initiating the departmental enquiry, the lack of involvement of the appellants in the alleged misconduct, and the violation of constitutional rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in initiating the departmental enquiry was unreasonable and prejudicial to the appellants, violating their constitutional rights. The court also emphasized that the appellants were not involved in the alleged misconduct and quashed the departmental enquiry/memorandum of chargesheet against them.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Letters Patent Appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, and quashed the departmental enquiry/memorandum of chargesheet against the appellants. The court also directed that the promotions of the appellants, kept in abeyance, be made available to them along with other service benefits from due dates as if there had not been any chargesheet/departmental enquiry against them.
( 1 ) THESELETTERS Patent Appeals (LPA no. 735/2002 - Sadashiv Garud v. Food corporation of India and others, LPA No. 772/2002 - Balwant Jayaram Birari v. Food corporation of India and others, LPA No. 773/2002 - Jagdish Chandra Littoriya v. Food corporation of India and others, and LPA No. 775/2002 - Madhukar Ramrao Kurhade v. Food Corporation of India and others are proposed to be decided by this judgment, since common questions arise for consideration and determination.
( 2 ) SARVASHRI Sadashiv Shivram Garud, balwant Jayaram Birari and Madhukar Ramrao kurhade are Assistant Grade-I (Depot) while jagdish Chandra Littoriya is Assistant Grade-II (Depot) in the Food Corporation of India (for short Corporation ). With regard to an incident of 1987-1988, the Corporation filed First information Report with the Central Bureau of investigation on 19/07/1991 against Shri R. A. Gupta, Assistant Manager (Depot), Shri R. K. Damani, Contractor, and Sri Pradeep K. Pandey (representative - R. K. Damani) under Sections 5 (l) (d) and 13 (l) (d) of the Prevention of corruption Act read with Sections 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation resulted in prosecution of the accused before the Special court, Jabalpur, in Special Case No. 3/1993. The appellants were prosecution witnesses in this case, which resulted in conviction of the accused, who have been awarded sentence of fine, vide judgment dated 1/05/1999. This judgment seems to be final, since counsel for parties have no information about any appeal arising out of the same, despite lapse of almost three years. The appellants not only appeared as prosecution witnesses in the Special Case No. 3/1993, but also called by the Corporation to appear in the departmental enquiry against Shri D. V. Rao, assistant Manager (Accounts ). The departmental enquiry turned against Shri D. V. Rao, Assistant manager (Accounts) and vide order dated 29/09/1995, he is awarded punishment of 'censure'.
( 3 ) THE Corporation issued memorandum of charge sheet dated 11/11/1999 alleging that while appellants functioning as assistant Grade-I (Depot)/assistant Grade-II (Depot), during 1987- 1988, committed grave misconduct, since they failed to mention the number of bags in words in work slips mentioned in the memorandum of charge and also allowed the representative of the contractor to prepare the work slips thereby facilitating contractor to add more digits, to the original figures shown in the work slips, generally from the left side and right side in order to enhance the volume of work done by his labourers under the various categories and different clauses of the agreement between the corporation and the contractor in original and duplicate copies of work slips, which resulted in undue and illegal profit to the contractor, Shri r. K. Damani, and caused huge. financial loss to the Corporation. Thus, the appellants by their acts exhibited lack of integrity and devotion to duty and thereby violated Rules 31, 32, 32-A of Food Corporation of India (Staff)regulations, 1971. Perusal of Office order dated 17/06/1992 demonstrates that the appellants, who were witnesses to the prosecution case, are also witnesses in this case. The appellants denied the charges.
( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the Corporation issued order No. 189/2000, dated 21/09/2000 for promotion to the post of Assistant manager (Depot) in the pay scale of Rs. 8600-250-14,600/ from the post of Assistant grade-I (Depot ). Since the chargesheet had been issued to the appellants, they were not permitted to join, despite repeated representations. For subsequent promotions to the post/grade, appellants were considered but were not allowed to join due to pendency of the departmental enquiry, meaning thereby promotions were kept in abeyance due to issuance of memorandum of chargesheet. From november 11, 1999 to October, 2002, the corporation went on changing the enquiry officers followed by two corrigendums modi
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
