JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri S.K.Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Alka Verma, learned counsel for Food Corporation of India (in short "FCI"), respondents. 2. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court to assail the order of punishment dated 13/15.1.2005 passed by the Senior Regional Manager (Disciplinary Authority), the order dismissing the appeal thereto dated 3.10.2006/3.11.2006 passed by the Executive Director (North) and the order dated 14.8.2007 dismissing the petitioner's review petition passed by the Managing Director, FCI. 3. Petitioner is a Technical Assistant - III working with the FCI. He faced disciplinary action while posted at Mandi Yard, Gola during the period 1998-99. He was charged for causing damage to the wheat stock and for misappropriation of about 140 bags of wheat in connivance with the depot staff. The Inquiry Officer found charge No.1 not fully proved and charge No.2 to be partially proved. He was accordingly awarded punishment of reversion by two stages in the present time scale of pay for two years whereafter he was permitted to earn normal increment from the reduced scale. 4. The only ground on which the above punishment has been assailed is that though the petitioenr was posted at Mandi Yard, Gola but the stocks of wheat were received earlier to his joining and that he was entrusted with the responsibility of security of the stock in shed No.1 to 6 and not with the stock lying in open in the covered and plinth complex (in short "CAP") and, therefore, he cannot be saddeled with the responsibility of causing damage to the foodgrains. 5. The above argument has been opposed by Ms. Alka Verma, learned counsel for the FCI by placing reliance upon paragraphs 6, 10 and 27 of the counter affidavit and it is strongly contended that the stock of wheat in the Mandi Yard, Gola as per the inspection report, was found to be spoiled and the stock in CAP covers the stock lying in the sheds and, therefore, the petitioner cannot escape from the liability of the damage caused. 6. The inspection of the stock of wheat in the Mandi Yard, Gola was carried out by the Senior Regional Manager, FCI, Lucknow on 8.10.1999. The report in this regard is Annexure - 13 to the writ petition. It states that the wheat stock was damaged due to rain water. 6. The inspection of the stock of wheat in the Mandi Yard, Gola was carried out by the Senior Regional Manager, FCI, Lucknow on 8.10.1999. The report in this regard is Annexure - 13 to the writ petition. It states that the wheat stock was damaged due to rain water. The total storage of wheat stock was about 35,000 tones in CAP as well as in covered tin sheds of the Mandi Yard. All stacks of wheat received from the biginning of the crop year 1998-99 and stored under the tin sheds were in sound condition. The stacks of wheat damaged as well as undamaged lying in the open were shifted under the covered sheds. 7. On the basis of the above report, it is being suggested that one can easily draw an inference that the stacks of wheat which were kept in tin sheds were safe and only the stacks which were in open were damaged and were later shifted in the covered area. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the court to the work allotment chart of the Technical Assistants posted at Mandi Yard, Gola dated 1.9.1998 (Annexure - 5 to the writ petition). The said duty chart reveals that four Technical Assistants including the petitioner were alloted duties and that the petitioenr was entrusted with the preservation work of the stock stored in shed No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Mandi Yard, Gola whereas one Mr. M.A. Siddiqui was entrusted with the preservation work of the stock stored in CAP Mandi Yard Gola. 9. On the basis of the above duty chart, it is being contended that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the damage caused to the wheat stock at Mandi Yard, Gola, inasmuch as the stock kept in the CAP alone was damaged and not one under the sheds which were put under the supervision of the petitioner. 10. In view of the inspection report and the cuty chart referred to above, the submission of Ms. Alka Verma that the CAP coveres the stock under the tin shet is not acceptable. Both the above documents refer the CAP and the stock in the ten sheds separately. 11. Learned counsel for the FCI submitted that no such argument as is being raised in the writ petition, was canvassed on behalf of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry. Alka Verma that the CAP coveres the stock under the tin shet is not acceptable. Both the above documents refer the CAP and the stock in the ten sheds separately. 11. Learned counsel for the FCI submitted that no such argument as is being raised in the writ petition, was canvassed on behalf of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry. There is no discrepancy or irregularity in conducting the enquiry and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. 12. No doubt, the enquiry was held in accordance with law and there appears to be no violation of principles of natural justice but the disciplinary authority in the order does not records that the wheat kept in sheds was also destroyed/spoiled or that petitioner was also responsible for the preservation of wheat lying in open or that wheat in open was meant to be stored in sheds and that the petitioner failed to act in time in shifting it causing it to be spoiled/damaged. It only records that the petitioner was looking after the preservation work of the unit for major period of time and that stock of wheat was damaged during the posting of the petitioner without even referring that there were other Technical Assistants also who were entrusted with the work of pereservation of the stocks along with the petitioner and how duties amongst them were allocated. There is no finding anywhere about the place where the stock which was damaged was actually stored. 13. The petitioner in appeal had taken a clear stand that he was deployed at tin sheds No.1 to 6 and the appellate authority though noted the above contention but failed to record any finding in that regard and had brushed aside the matter by holding that the record reveals that the petitioner was looking after the preservation work for the major period. 14. Same is the situation with the order passed by the Reviewing Authority. 15. In this situation, it is clear that the petitioner has raised an issue of his deployment at tin sheds no. 1 to 6 only suggesting that he was not responsible for the damage caused to the stock lying elsewhere. 14. Same is the situation with the order passed by the Reviewing Authority. 15. In this situation, it is clear that the petitioner has raised an issue of his deployment at tin sheds no. 1 to 6 only suggesting that he was not responsible for the damage caused to the stock lying elsewhere. The authorities have not cared to consider the above aspect and simply for the reason that the petitioner had remained posted during the period at Mandi Yard Gola, erred in holding him responsible for the damage caused to the wheat stock which apparently was lying in the open. 16. It may be another thing that the petitioner may have acted negligently and may not have taken care to shift the stock to the tin shets from the open in CAP but the fact remains that the contentions raised by the petitioner in appeal remained unattended without any finding whatsoever. 17. In above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the appellate authority and, if necessary, by the reviewing authority also on the above aspect. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned orders dated 3.10.2006/3.11.2006 passed by the Executive Director (North) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and dated 14.8.2007 passed by the Managing Director, FCI dismissing the petitioner's review petition are quashed with the direction to the appellate authority to reconsider and decide afresh the petitioner's departmental appeal in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.