JUDGMENT R. B. Misra, J.—Heard Sri M. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. P. Singh, learned counsel for Food Corporation of India. In this writ petition the order dated 17/27.10.1987 (Annexure-6) has been challenged whereby the petitioner has been reverted from the post of A.G.I. (D) to the post of A.D. II (D). 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that petitioner was posted at Food Storage Depot, Palla, district Aligarh in the year 1982-83 when alleged theft took place in the food godown of Food Corporation of India which was noticed first time on 4.2.1983 and an F.I.R. was lodged for theft of 500 bags of wheat and subsequently 75 bags of wheat were noted as short for which an F.I.R. was lodged. According to the petitioner large number of persons were deployed at the godown along with the petitioner however, the petitioner was placed under suspension under 66 of sub-clause 2 of F.C.I. (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (called Regulation 1971 in short). The Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India appointed as disciplinary authority served the charge-sheet dated 19.5.1986 on the petitioner comprising of dereliction of duty, financial irregularity and lack of maintenance integrity and devotion of duty and acting as careless and negligent manner, in reference to the petitioner supported by the annexures containing imputation of conduct of misbehaviour. However, unconditional suspension was revoked on 19.5.1986 to the petitioner. The charges in short indicated as under : “The said Shri B. S. Sharma, A.G.I (D) while posted and functioning as Depot Incharge at A.R.D.C. Godown, Palla, district Aligarh during 1982-83 failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, failed to serve the organisation honestly and faithfully and also acted in such a careless and negligent manner which is unbecoming of a corporation employee in as much as on verification of stocks 575 B/s of wheat in eight stocks were found short by the P.V. team headed by another team of two officers of D.O., Agra.” 3. At some stage one Sri B. D. Pathak was appointed as Enquiry Officer and later on Sri B. P. Goel, D.M. (E) was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 8.7.1987, who after conducting the enquiry, found the charges and allegations to be proved therefore, the petitioner was reverted by order dated 27.10.1987. At some stage one Sri B. D. Pathak was appointed as Enquiry Officer and later on Sri B. P. Goel, D.M. (E) was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 8.7.1987, who after conducting the enquiry, found the charges and allegations to be proved therefore, the petitioner was reverted by order dated 27.10.1987. The inquiry report was submitted to the Regional Manager which accorded his concurrence to it, therefore, in exercise of Regulations 56 of F.C.I. Staff Regulation a penalty of reversion from post of Assistant Gr. I (D), to the post A.D. II (D) for five years with immediate effect was passed. According to which the petitioner was to get salary of A.G. II (D) i.e., prior to the post of A.G.I. and suspension period of the petitioner were treated to be duty. The petitioner was given inquiry report, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 68 of F.C.I. Staff Regulations, 1971, which was also dismissed by the Zonal Manager. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 17/27.10.1987, has been passed in a mechanical manner without observing the principle of natural justice and without assigning any reason and without observing the norms and procedure laid down in the regulations and ignoring that others were involved in the alleged episode, however, they have been untouched whereas the petitioner has been penalised. 4. The counter-affidavit has been filed. It is relevant to refer the contents of paras 3, 4, 6, 11, 12 and 13 of the counter-affidavit. In reference to para 3 it was indicated that a shortage of 575 bags of wheat in stocks was detected and in order to conceal his guilt the petitioner himself lodged an F.I.R. with the police station concerned of an alleged theft in that regard on 4.2.1983 which was duly investigated by the police and was found concocted and false and a final report submitted was accepted by the Court. It was further found and concluded by the investigating agency that it was a case of mis-appropriation of wheat bags from the F.C.I. depot by the petitioner. “Para 4.—Investigating team of the F.C.I. conducting personal verification of the stock also reported that there was no sign of theft and the custodian of the stock is solely responsible for misappropriation of stocks. “Para 4.—Investigating team of the F.C.I. conducting personal verification of the stock also reported that there was no sign of theft and the custodian of the stock is solely responsible for misappropriation of stocks. As per job description A.G. I (D) has to hold the charge up to 10,000 tons of foodgrains along with other dead stocks articles and gunnies and equipment etc. in the shed. For the godowns under his charge, he has to hold keys of the godown being custodian of the stock other articles and records, etc. and to get the godown sealed opened and closed regularly under the signature of custodian are the duties and responsibilities of incharge as such petitioner being incharge and custodian of stock in dispute is solely responsible for the shortage of bags and efficient working of stocks. For his administrative held assistants were posted and provided for effective and efficient functioning who were entirely under his control.” “Para 6.—In spite of the best efforts, no prima facie, evidence of any kind against other assistant of the petitioner and nothing could be done against them, but there were clinching circumstantial evidence against the petitioner owing to his job assignments as mentioned above so proceedings were initiated against him only.” “Para 11.—Enquiry was concluded within frame work of rules and regulations and all the material papers relied upon by the department were given to the petitioner and the witnesses examined were well cross-examined by the petitioner and no prejudice was ever caused to him.” “Para 12.—The Enquiry Officer allowed the petitioner to make an inspection of documents as desired by him. The petitioner thereupon duly inspected the documents on 22/23.4.1987 and signed certificate in token thereof.” “Para 13.—The appellate authority had examined records, enquiry report other evidence and comments on appeal and then arrived at the conclusion that there is no force in appeal and affirmed the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority.” 5. The endeavourance has been made to controvert the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and to prove and reiterate the stand of the writ petition to prove the innocence of the petitioner. The endeavourance has been made to controvert the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and to prove and reiterate the stand of the writ petition to prove the innocence of the petitioner. “Regulations, 1971” framed under Section 45 of the Food Corporations Act, 1964, is applicable to the petitioner where Regulation 56 prescribed for disciplinary authorities, Regulation 57 prescribed for authority to institute proceedings, Regulation 58 prescribed for procedure for imposing major penalties and Regulation 59 prescribed for action on the inquiry report and Regulation 61 in respect of communication of order, Regulation 68 provides for orders against which appeal lies, Regulation 71 deals with the review. 6. The Regulation 54 deals with penalties minor penalties and major penalties, which are reproduced below : Notwithstanding anything contained in any other regulation, and without prejudice to such action to which an employee may become liable under any other regulation or law for the time being in force, the following penalties may (for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided) be imposed on any employee of the corporation. Minor Penalties : (i) Censure ; (ii) Withholding of his promotion ; (iii) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the corporation by negligence or breach of orders ; (iv) Withholding of increments of pay. Major Penalties : (v) Reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the employee of the corporation will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay ; (vi) Reduction to a lower time-scale of pay or post which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the employee to the time-scale of pay or post from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the post from which the employee of the corporation was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that post ; (vii) Compulsory retirement ; (viii) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the corporation ; (ix) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the corporation. 7. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner was involved in the theft and himself had filed a concocted F.I.R. which after investigation was found concocted and false. The petitioner was allowed to inspect the 22 documents as enclosed in Annexures-C.A. 1 and 2 and was allowed to adduce oral and documentary evidence and was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, and date, time and place was fixed as asserted in the counter-affidavit. The petitioner was afforded proper opportunity of hearing and inquiry was conducted in consonance to the procedure prescribed under Regulation 58 of “Regulation 1971” and on proper application of mind the disciplinary authority has accepted the report and appeal preferred too was considered and was dismissed. There is no procedural lapse in the inquiry and report and therefore, this Court is not supposed to sit over the findings of the disciplinary authority as observed in the case of Union of India v. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 and State of Punjab v. Bakshish, 1998 (1) AWC 57 (SC) : (1997) 6 SCC 387. 8. It will not affect the gravity of offence even if large number persons present at the time of episode of theft were punished less or were not punished at all, the petitioner the main person involved in theft has, however, been rightly penalised for his misdeeds. 9. In view of the above analysis the writ petition is devoid of merit. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.