JUDGMENT Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J. 1. Both Mr. S.K. Muktar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Bora, are heard at length. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the order dated 28-6-2005 issued by the Zonal Manager (E)/Disciplinary Authority, FCI, Guwahati (respondent No. 3) imposing penalty for recovery of Rs.42,767/- from the pay of the petitioner and the order dated 28.06.2005 issued by the Managing Director, FCI, New Delhi rejecting the appeal filed by him. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that when the petitioner was functioning as Asstt. Manager (Cont.), FCI, R.O., Guwahati, the Food Corporation of India (for short "Corporation") on 14-10-1996 floated NIT for appointment of regular Transport Contractor on point to point basis for 2 years from New Bongaigaon/Bongaigaon Railway siding to four godowns including one ASWC godown, Bongaigaon as the fourth godown. Altogether, 7 persons had submitted their tenders. According to the petitioner, after opening the tenders on 08.11.1996, the dealing assistant in the Contract Section, FCI, R.O., Guwahati made calculations of the rates quoted by different tenders and had shown that one Sri Hemandrajit Thakuria had quoted the lowest average rates for the said four godowns. The entire documents of the Transport Contractor were then placed before the Preliminary Committee, of which the petitioner happened to be one of the four members. It is the case of the petitioner that as the said Hemandrajit Thakuria had quoted the lowest rate for three godowns, the Preliminary Committee recommended his case to the Final Committee for negotiation of the rate for the 4th godown as his rate was not the lowest for the same. After the negotiation, the Final Committee on 19.12.1996 finalized the negotiated the rate at Rs.34.50 with Sri Hemandrajit Thakuria and recommended this negotiated rate together with the rates for the other three godowns for acceptance. 2. After the negotiation, the Final Committee on 19.12.1996 finalized the negotiated the rate at Rs.34.50 with Sri Hemandrajit Thakuria and recommended this negotiated rate together with the rates for the other three godowns for acceptance. 2. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 04.02.2004, the Corporation, however, issued the memorandum of charges against him alleging that he being a member of the Preliminary Committee failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in recommending the award of contract to Sri Hemandrajit Thakuria by working out the average of 4 (four) rates quoted by them instead of determining the lowest tender on the basis of the rates quoted by different contractors for different godowns, which led to a loss of Rs.1.71 lakhs to the Corporation. The petitioner duly submitted his reply denying all the charges. The Disciplinary Authority, by the order dated 19/28.07.2004 inter alia stated that the 4 (four) members of the Committee of the Regional Office misled the competent authority to accept the rate computed to be lowest on average basis and the loss of Rs. 1.71 lakhs needed to be shared equally by all the four Officers. The Disciplinary Authority, accordingly, imposed a penalty for recovery of Rs.42,767/- from the pay of the petitioner in five monthly instalments. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned penalty was rejected by the Appellate Authority by the order dated 28.06.2005. It may be noted that the petitioner had in the meantime retired from service as Asstt. Manager (Genl), FCI, RO, Guwahati on Voluntary Retirement Scheme w.e.f. 30.09.2004, but the competent authority recovered Rs.42,767/- as a penalty from his pension at the time of his retirement. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities dropped the proceedings against his colleagues, namely, Sri Homeswar Goswami, who was also a Member of the Preliminary Committee and no action was taken against Sri S. Radhakrishnan, Deputy Manager, S&C, who was also a Member of the Preliminary Committee whereas a penalty for recovery of Rs.42,767/- had been imposed upon him and one Sri Mahesh Baishya, who was also the member of the Preliminary Committee. It is the contention of the petitioner that all the members of the Preliminary Committee should have been treated equally and the action of the respondent authorities in realising the penalty from the petitioner is, therefore, arbitrary and discriminatory. It is the contention of the petitioner that all the members of the Preliminary Committee should have been treated equally and the action of the respondent authorities in realising the penalty from the petitioner is, therefore, arbitrary and discriminatory. This is how the writ petition came to be filed. 3. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent-Corporation by filing their affidavit-in-opposition. The case of the respondent is that the Preliminary Committee consisting of the petitioner, Sri Kiran Ch. Baishya, Shri M. Baishya, Sri Homeswar Goswami and Sri S. Radhakrishnan, who were the officials of the Corporation, after analysing the different rates submitted by the 7 tenderers recommended vide their minutes dated 05.12.1996 that the lowest quoted average of Rs.12.75 per MT in respect of Shri Hemandrajit Thakuria (who had quoted the rate of 4 routes as Rs.5.00, Rs.5.00 and Rs.6.00 for CRTC, private party godown and private party godown respectively, Rs.35.00 for ASWC godown) is lesser than all other rates. According to the Preliminary Committee, as for the 4th route, the rates quoted by the said Hemandrajit Thakuria were not lowest and the lowest rate was quoted by one Sri S.S. Hussain at the rate of Rs.28.87. It is the case of the respondents that the Preliminary Committee, ignoring this vital aspect of the matter vide their minutes dated 05.12.1996 recommended negotiation with the lowest tenderer, Shri Hemandrajit Thakuria to reduce his rate against the route No. 4 i.e. ASWC godown. The official concerned with processing the tender on the file, agreed with the recommendation of the Preliminary Committee for holding of negotiation with Shri Hemandrajit Thakuria. The next higher authority "Negotiation Committee" comprising of DM (S&C), JM (F&A), RM and SRM held negotiation and the said Hemandrajit Thakuria reduced his rates from Rs.35.00 to Rs.34.50 per MT only for route No. 4 and Rs.5.00 per MT for route No. 3. The negotiated rates in respect of the tender of the said Hemandrajit Thakuria was, eventually, approved by the Senior Regional Manager, who conveyed his acceptance to the tenderer indicating that the negotiated rate of Rs.5.00 each for route No. 1, 2 & 3 and Rs.34.50 for route No. 4 calculating the average rate of Rs.12.37 on point to point basis for the entire distance had been accepted. 3A. 3A. It is also the specific case of the respondent authorities that in terms of the aforesaid rates accepted on the basis of the recommendation of the Preliminary Committee, a clear loss of Rs.1,71,068.42 was thus caused to the Corporation by awarding the contract to Shri Hemandrajit Thakuria at the rate of Rs.34.50 by determining him to be the lowest tenderer on the basis of the average rate basis for ASWC godown instead of awarding the contract for this godown to the lowest contractor (tenderer?), namely, Shri S.S. Hussain. The respondent authorities clearly blamed this loss on the members of the Preliminary Committee, which ultimately lead to the issuance of the impugned orders. It is the further case of the respondent authorities that the said Sri Homeswar Goswami, who happened to be a Category-I Officers was issued show cause by the Disciplinary Authority and on receipt of his reply, the same was accepted by the competent authority and no action was taken against him. In so far as Sri S. Radhakrishnan, the then DM (S&C) is concerned, he had retired from the service of the Corporation before any action could be taken against him. With respect to Sri N.C. Gautam, G.M. (Region) (SRM), the respondent-Corporation assert that he was not involved in awarding of average contract of Bongaigaon in question, as contended by the petitioner. As far as Category-II Officers like the petitioner, the Executive Director (E) (Zonal Manager) being the competent Disciplinary Authority initiated departmental inquiry against them for their involvement on awarding of contract on average rate in respect of Bongaigaon and Nagaon. Sri Mahesh Baishya, who happened to be a member of the Preliminary Committee was proceeded against and was penalised for recovery of Rs.42,767/-. However, the petitioner was proceeded with and penalized for his lapses and involvement in the case as dealing Assistant Manager (Contract) [Re-designated Manager (Contract)] and also being a member of the Preliminary Committee. The answering respondents therefore, denied that there was any illegality in imposing impugned penalty upon the petitioner. These are the sum and substance of the case of the respondent authorities. 3B. After going through the pleadings of the parties and after examination of the documents annexed thereto, I am constrained to observe that the petitioner has been given a raw deal by the respondent authorities. These are the sum and substance of the case of the respondent authorities. 3B. After going through the pleadings of the parties and after examination of the documents annexed thereto, I am constrained to observe that the petitioner has been given a raw deal by the respondent authorities. In the first place, it may be noted that the petitioner was merely a member of the Preliminary Committee and was not involved in the final decision-making process. The function of the Preliminary Committee was to consider and frame the rates quoted by the 7 tenderers and to recommend the tenderers, whose rates are found to be lowest. After opening the tenders on 08.11.1996, the concerned dealing assistant in the Contract Section made the calculations with respect to the rates quoted by the different tenderers and that the said Hemandrajit Thakuria had quoted the lowest rates for the said four godowns on average basis. At this stage, it may be noted that the lowest rate quoted by the said Hemandrajit Thakuria was in respect of three (3) godowns whereas the rate of Rs.35/- quoted by him for the 4th Godown/route was not the lowest. Nevertheless, the Preliminary Committee recommended that the rate quoted said Hemandrajit Thakuria in respect of the 4th godown could be negotiated and got the rate reduced. The petitioner never made any misrepresentation in this behalf: the fact that the rate quoted by the said Hemandrajit Thakuria was not the lowest was duly highlighted in the recommendation of the Preliminary Committee. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that any material facts were suppressed or misrepresented by the Preliminary Committee while making their recommendations. In their wisdom, the Preliminary Committee recommended that the person, who quoted the lowest tenders in respect of the 3 (three) godown, might also given an opportunity to reduce his rate in respect of Godown/Route No. 4 in the interest of commercial viability. That was all that the Preliminary Committee indicated in their recommendation. It is for the Final Committee to accept or reject the recommendation or to come to a different conclusion. Perhaps, it was for this reason that no tangible penalty was awarded to Sri Homeswar Goswami. That was all that the Preliminary Committee indicated in their recommendation. It is for the Final Committee to accept or reject the recommendation or to come to a different conclusion. Perhaps, it was for this reason that no tangible penalty was awarded to Sri Homeswar Goswami. This is a case in which the Final Committee apparently abdicated its function and when financial loss was incurred by the Corporation, the recommending authority was made the scapegoat for the lapses of the Final Committee and some of the members of the Preliminary Committee penalised while the members of the Final Committee, who actually took the ill-fated decision were given a clean chit. It may be noted that the said Homeswar Goswami, who was also a Member of the Preliminary Committee like the petitioner, was exonerated from all liabilities, whereas Sri S. Radhakrishnan, who was also a Member of the Preliminary Committee was not proceeded against at all, which, according to the learned Standing Counsel, was occasioned by his retirement on superannuation. Under the circumstances, I failed to understand as to how the petitioner can be chosen along with Sri Mahesh Baishya for punishment. In the case of Sri Mahesh Baishya, who was also a Member of the Preliminary Committee, similar penalty was imposed upon him, but he was apparently quite satisfied with the penalty imposed upon him and did not challenge the penalty imposed upon him: I have nothing to comment upon this. It is to be noted that Sri NC Gautam, GM (Region) (SRM), who was also a member of the Final Committee was merely awarded a penalty of censure along with Shri L.C. Gogoi, the then JM (F&A). It, therefore, stands to reason that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is irrational and arbitrary as well as discriminatory. This calls for the interference of this Court. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 28.07.2004, imposing penalty for recovery of Rs.42,767/- from the petitioner as well as the Appellate Authority Order dated 28.06.2005 (Annexure-F) rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner are hereby quashed. This calls for the interference of this Court. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 28.07.2004, imposing penalty for recovery of Rs.42,767/- from the petitioner as well as the Appellate Authority Order dated 28.06.2005 (Annexure-F) rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner are hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are, therefore, directed to refund the sum of Rs.42,767/- recovered from petitioner within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order failing which the respondent authorities shall pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the recovery was made from the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs. Disposed off.