Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 944 (PNJ)

Mohinder Ram v. F. C. I.

2005-09-06

NIRMAL YADAV, S.S.NIJJAR

body2005
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. The petitioners joined service of the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as "the FCI") as Watchman/Assistant Grade-III (Depot), respectively on 16.8.1969 and 23.12.1971. On 16.12.1971, petitioner No. 1 was promoted as Assistant Grade-III (Depot). Thereafter, the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Grade-II (Depot) (hereinafter referred to as "AG-II") and Assistant Grade-I (Depot) (hereinafter referred to as AG-I), on 14.12.1989. On 7.1.1992, the petitioners were served with a chargesheet. After holding a departmental enquiry, the petitioners were held guilty of the charges. On 6.7.1993, the petitioners were reduced in rank from the post of AG-I to that of AG-II with future bar on promotion. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed appeals which were also rejected by order dated 28.5.1994 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, the petitioners filed review application before the Managing Director-respondent No. l. By order dated 14.1.2000 (Annexure P-4), the order of punishment was modified as follows:- NOW THEREFORE, I, S.S. Dawra, Managing Director, being Reviewing Authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation-74 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 hereby modify the penalty of "reduction in rank from the post of AG-I(D) to that of AG-II (D) with future bar on promotion for 8 years from 6.7.93 i.e. the date of original penalty imposed upon Shri Mohinder Ram, AG-II(D) by the Disciplinary Authority. 8. years period from 6.76.1993 having expired in July, 2001, the petitioners submitted representations dated 1.7.2002 and 27.1.2003 (Annexure P-6 and P-7) to the respondents for restoration to the post of AG-I. The respondents have not taken any decision on the representations. The petitioner have, therefore, filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the respondents to restore the petitioners to the post of AG-I w.e.f. 6.7.2001. 2 The respondents have filed the written statement. The claim put forward by the petitioners is controverted. It has been stated that the petitioners cannot claim, automatic restoration on the post of AG-I on the completion of 8 years. Furthermore, the petitioners have been punished for other misconducts. As a consequence of which, the petitioners cannot be restored on the post of AG-1 (Depot). There are various vigilance cases pending against both the petitioners on account of which the petitioners cannot be, promoted. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the paperhook. 4. Mr. As a consequence of which, the petitioners cannot be restored on the post of AG-1 (Depot). There are various vigilance cases pending against both the petitioners on account of which the petitioners cannot be, promoted. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the paperhook. 4. Mr. R.K. Chopra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the facts of this case, the petitioners are not required to be promoted from the posts of AG II top AG-I. By the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioners had been debarred from promotion indefinitely. The Review Authority has. however modified disorder of punishment and the punishment has been reduced for a period of 8 years only from 6.7.1993. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be restored to the position of AG-I. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the petitioners cannot be restored to the position of AG-I as they are facing, number of Vigilance Cases. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. A perusal of the order passed by the Reviewing Authority clearly shows that the petitioners had been reduced in rank for a specified period of 8 years. The aforesaid period having expired, the petitioners are entitled to be restored on the post of AG-I from which rank they had been reduced to the rank of AG-II as a measure of punishment, The punishment inflicted by the order of reviewing authority has been suffered by the petitioners. They cannot be further punished on the basis of the aforesaid order. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioners on the post of A0-I w.e.f. 6.7.2001. The restoration of the petitioners on the post of AG-I would not/debar the respondents from taking further disciplinary action against the petitioners, on the basis of any other misconduct which may be alleged/proved against the petitioners. No costs.