JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the petitioner, being an employee of Food Corporation of India, filled up the nomination form supported by affidavit to contest for the post of Pradhan of Village Panchayat Falenda, Block Bhilangana, Tehsil Ghansali, District Tehri Garhwal on 8.8.2008. He was elected as a Gram Pradhan and assumed charge on 13.8.2008 accordingly. His activities, inter alia, were objected to by calling his explanations time and again and ultimately, he was served with a chargesheet by Sri Sudeep Singh, the General Manager of the Corporation, by highlighting the activities of petitioner in the following words entailed in the confidential letter dated 24.9.2011 written by the General Manager to the Zonal Office (North), Noida, headed by the Executive Director: - “It is a matter of record that Shri Rana is a habitual offender and has tried in past on many occasions to take office decorum and discipline in his hands and executing uncalled for conducts with senior officers. I am not repeating the details of his past conduct vis-à-vis the penalties imposed upon him, his transfer out of Region to J & K Region which is a matter of record. Almost every General Manager has communicated to Zonal Office (North)/Headquarters about his misdeeds and misconduct. Being a Regional Secretary of BKNK Sangh, he misuses the Union platform from time to time and manages such awkward situations taking every law of land in his hands. His modus operandi is to instigate and provocate the other sincere and efficient officials against the Management and to terrorise them for his personal benefits. It can be judged from the fact that nobody was willing to investigate the complaint against him as mentioned at Para-1 above and it was lying pending for the last about three years because of his fear and vandalism. Since, I have taken initiative to get investigated the complaint and charge sheeted him, I have a hunch that out of frustration, he will also start misinformation campaign against me just to malign my image by making anonymous/pseudonymous complaint(s) or by way of misusing the union platform to put pressure on me.” 2. The enquiry culminated in termination of petitioner’s services on 14.12.2011; such order is elaborate one and runs in as many as -8- pages (Annexure No.17 herein). Mr. The enquiry culminated in termination of petitioner’s services on 14.12.2011; such order is elaborate one and runs in as many as -8- pages (Annexure No.17 herein). Mr. Rana filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.1909 of 2011 and the Single Bench of this Court, by way of order dated 22.12.2011, disposed of the petition with liberty to Mr. Rana to prefer a departmental appeal. So, he accordingly moved such appeal which was dismissed by the order dated 13.3.2012 affirming the findings of the Enquiry Officer, meaning thereby, his dismissal was confirmed. The only relief provided to him was that the Executive Engineer (Appellate Authority) stopped recovery of any money from Mr. Rana as well as forfeiture of gratuity. Mr. Rana approached this Court once again in WPSS No.508 of 2012, wherein the order was passed by this Court on 20.4.2012, holding that apparently the petitioner is a workman and can easily raise an industrial dispute with regard to his alleged termination and thus, the petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available. 3. Instead of availing such remedy as per observation of this Court, petitioner filed a review petition on 26.10.2012 and the Reviewing Authority Mr. C. Vishwanathan, Managing Director, allowed the review and his termination was converted to a mild punishment as under : - “Now, therefore, I, C. Viswanath, Managing Director being the Reviewing Authority, in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 74 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 take a lenient view and modify the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 14.12.2011 to the extent of a penalty of reduction to the minimum time scale of pay of AG II (Depot) upon Shri Virendra Singh Rana. As regard regularization of the dismissal period, it is to be treated as the period ‘Not Spent On Duty,” 4. Again, Mr. Rana has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition. His learned counsel has relied on the judgment passed by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in case of ‘Smt. Chandrawati Devi v. Phoolchand Bind & others’ reported in 2005 (1) AWC Page 782, wherein it was held that since the Food Corporation of India is not owned or controlled by the Central Government, hence it cannot be influenced by the Government. 5. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has taken this Court to the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, Regulations 34 and 35 whereof read as under: - “34. Taking part in politics: (i) No employee shall be a member of, or otherwise be associated with, any political party or any organization which takes part in politics, nor shall he take part in, subscribe in aid of, or assist in any other manner, and political movement or activity. (ii) It shall be the duty of every employee to prevent any member of his family from taking part in, subscribing in aid of, assisting in any other manner, any movement or activity which, is, or tends directly or indirectly to be subversive of the Corporation or of the Government as by law established. Where an employee is unable to prevent a member of his family from taking part in or subscribing in aid of or assisting in any other manner any such movement or activity, he shall make a report to that effect to the Corporation. Explanation: If any question arise whether a party is a political party or whether any organization takes part in politics, whether any movement or activity falls within scope of sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) above the decision of the Managing Director thereon shall be final. 5 35. Taking part in elections: No employee shall canvass or otherwise interfere with or use his influence in connection with or take part in an election to any legislature or local authority, provided that : (i) An employee qualified to vote at such an election may exercise his right to vote, but where he does so, he shall give no indication of the manner in which he proposes to vote or has voted; (ii) An employee shall not be deemed to have contravened the provisions of this paragraph by reason only that he assists in the conduct of an election in due performance of a duty imposed on him by or under any law for the time being in force. Explanation: The display by an employee on his person. Vehicle or residence of any electoral symbol shall amount to using his influence in connection with an election within the meaning of this regulation.” 6. Explanation: The display by an employee on his person. Vehicle or residence of any electoral symbol shall amount to using his influence in connection with an election within the meaning of this regulation.” 6. Looking to these regulations, the Court is unable to understand as to on what grounds, the Managing Director/Reviewing Authority has taken a lenient view to the punishment imposed against the delinquent petitioner but restrains itself to observe anything further in absence of any challenge to such order by the Corporation and that is obviously for the reason that to challenge the order of the Managing Director of the Corporation might have entailed a very difficult exercise. And had such exercise been taken by anyone, then in every probability, he might be vulnerable to the annoyance and wrath of such director. 7. If the precedent relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner is given weight by this Court, then such judgment of the Division Bench (Supra) itself makes it clear that the Food Corporation of India is neither a Central Government nor controlled or managed by it. 8. The Constitution of India envisages the course of writ remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that such jurisdiction can be enforced only against the action of the Government and not against a private individual. Although, this Court hardly do agree with the view expressed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court because Article 12 of the Constitution of India makes it abundantly clear in so many words that all these statutory bodies are in the definition of ‘State’, so it is difficult to accept that the Food Corporation of India is not the ‘State’, as regards the applicability of rules and regulations framed under the Food Corporation of India Act. 9. In all, this Court is not inclined to accept this petition. It is dismissed at the threshold.