Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 58 (PAT)

Ram Bilash Singh v. Food Corporation Of India

2006-01-17

V.N.SINHA

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tekriwal for the Food Corporation of India. 2. Petitioner, who served the Corporation as Assistant Grade-II(M) has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 29.1.1992 whereunder after conclusion of a departmental proceeding a penalty was imposed on him reducing him to the initial stage of the time scale of pay with further direction that he will not earn increments till 31.12.1995. The said order was confirmed in appeal vide order dated 29.10.1992, Annexure-11 as aiso in the review vide order dated 19th July, 1999, Annexure-13. 3. Initially, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and the memo of charge is contained in Annexure-1 perusal whereof indicates that he is alleged to have lifted short supply of sugar from S.K.G. Sugar Mills, Hathua and made excess payment for the months of April to December 1984 contrary to standing instructions of the Corporation and thereby the Corporation suffered a loss of Rs. 6,38,272/-. He is also charged for non-submission of accounting statement. The Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 15.5.1991, Annexure-7 perusal whereof indicates that the charge for non-submission of accounting statement was not proved but circumstantial excess payment to the miller against unlifted stock was proved. 4. During the arguments, it was agreed at the bar by learned counsel for the parties that the circumstantial excess payment to the miller did not cause any financial loss to the Corporation as subsequently the amount paid in excess to the miller was recovered by the Corporation within a period of one/two months, which is evident from the enquiry report itself and that is why the learned Enquiry Officer has held that there is only circumstantial excess payment to the miller. 5. Learned counsel appearing in support of this application with reference to the aforesaid enquiry report has submitted that as the Corporation did not suffer any financial loss, the punishment of reduction to the initial stage of the time scale of pay with further direction not to earn increment till 31.12.1995 appears to be disproportionate as the effect of the said punishment is reduction of about 20 increments to the petitioner. He further states that for similar charge his immediate superior Sri Asharfi Prasad, Assistant Manager, Quality Control, was imposed the punishment of censure as would appear from order dated 5.11.1997, Annexure-14/1. 6. He further states that for similar charge his immediate superior Sri Asharfi Prasad, Assistant Manager, Quality Control, was imposed the punishment of censure as would appear from order dated 5.11.1997, Annexure-14/1. 6. Having heard the counsel for the parties and having considered the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, I am of the view that the punishment imposed on the petitioner appears to be disproportionate as the effect of the said punishment tantamounts to reduction of his 20 increments even when the Corporation did not suffer any financial loss. In the opinion of this Court with reference to the facts of the present case the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate but in view of the well settled legal position that the punishment is the discretion of the disciplinary authority without disturbing any of the aforesaid three orders, this matter is remitted back to the Managing Director of the Corporation to reconsider the punishment imposed on the petitioner as no financial loss was caused to the Corporation. The petitioner is hereby directed to appear before the Managing Director alongwith a copy of this order within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy whereafter the Managing Director will reconsider the matter in accordance with law and pass reasoned order within another two months. If necessary, the Managing Director may also grant personal hearing to the petitioner.