JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. G. K. Gupta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. K. Singh, learned standing counsel, Food Corporation of India(FCI), appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present writ petition, has presented a challenge to an order, dated 28.02.2020, issued by the disciplinary authority imposing upon the petitioner, a penalty of recovery of Rs. 90,000/- from his salary in 10 equal instalments on conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding so instituted against him. The petitioner had also assailed an order, dated 11.07.2023, passed by the appellate authority, rejecting his appeal in the matter. 3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under: The petitioner, herein, was posted as the Shed Assistant at Food Storage Depot, Bindukuri, under the Food Corporation of India(FCI), Divisional Office, Tezpur. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner functioned as a Shed Assistant of Shed No. 4 w.e.f. 11.04.2017 to 12.10.2017, and had also functioned in the same capacity in Shed No. 5 w.e.f. 11.04.2017 to 31.10.2017. On loss being assessed on account of shortage of foodgrains stored in the above-noted Sheds wherein, the petitioner was discharging his duties as Shed Assistant, a memorandum of charge, dated 22.07.2019, under the provisions of Regulation 60 of the Food Corporation of India(Staff) Regulation, 1971, came to be issued against him. It was alleged against the petitioner in the said memorandum of charge, that during his tenure as the Shed Assistant of Sheds No. 4 & 5 of Food Storage Depot, Bindukuri, under the Food Corporation of India(FCI), Divisional Office, Tezpur, unjustified storage loss had occasioned and the value of such loss was assessed in respect of the said Sheds at Rs. 23,73,135.74. The petitioner on receipt of the said memorandum of charge, submitted his written statement on 05.08.2019, and therein, by highlighting the short tenure for which he was engaged for the works of the Sheds, in question, as Shed Assistant, had also contended that he was not in any manner responsible for the loss so occasioning of the stored foodgrains in the Sheds during the short period he had functioned as the Shed Assistant in the said Sheds. The said written statement of the petitioner was considered by the disciplinary authority and thereafter, on noticing the contentions raised by the petitioner in his written statement, proceeded to hold that the same does not justify the loss so occasioning in the said Sheds during his short tenure as the Shed Assistant of the said two Sheds. Basing on the said conclusion; the disciplinary authority, vide order, dated 28.02.2020, proceeded to impose the penalty of recovery of Rs.90,000/- in 10 equal monthly instalments against the petitioner, herein. The petitioner, thereafter, on 04.05.2020, preferred an appeal against the said order, dated 28.02.2020, passed by the disciplinary authority. The said appeal of the petitioner on consideration, came to be rejected by the appellate authority vide order, dated 11.07.2023. 4. Being aggrieved by the order, dated 28.02.2020, as well as the order, dated 11.07.2023; the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding with a further prayer that the consideration so made in respect of the petitioner by the selection committee for his promotion to the next higher grade/cadre kept in ‘sealed cover’, be directed to be opened and the petitioner be promoted with all consequential benefits. 5. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts as noticed hereinabove; has submitted that the disciplinary authority in the order, dated 28.02.2020, had not brought on record any material to connect the petitioner, herein, to the allegations so levelled against him vide memorandum of charge, dated 22.07.2019. 6. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel, has further submitted that the disciplinary authority had not recorded any finding with regard to the allegations so levelled against the petitioner in the memorandum of charge, dated 22.07.2019. The learned counsel has also submitted that the appellate authority had not considered the contentions so raised by the petitioner, herein, in the appeal memo, dated 04.05.2020, and had passed the order, dated 11.07.2023, merely, by reiterating the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority in its order, dated 28.02.2020. 7. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel, has placed reliance on a Circular, dated 12.02.2008, issued by the General Manager (Stocks), Food Corporation of India(FCI), Headquarter, New Delhi, and has contended that in terms of the said Circular, dated 12.02.2008; no recovery in respect of storage and/or transit losses was permissible to be effected without theft/pilferage and mala fide of the delinquent with regard to the loss so occasioning, being proved. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel, has also submitted that in view of the stipulations as contained in the said Circular, dated 12.02.2008, the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner vide order, dated 28.02.2020, was not permissible to be imposed, in-as-much as, no allegation of the petitioner being guilty of prevention of theft/pilferage of the materials stored, came to be levelled and/or established and accordingly, the learned counsel has contended that the said order, dated 28.02.2020, would call for an interference. 9. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel, has also submitted that the allegations of the petitioner being responsible for the loss so occasioning in the matter, is so based on presumption drawn by the disciplinary authority and has reiterated that there is no material brought on record to connect the petitioner to the purported loss so quantified by the respondent authorities in the matter. 10. Per contra, Mr. Singh, learned standing counsel, Food Corporation of India(FCI), has submitted that the petitioner, admittedly, being in-charge of Sheds No. 4 & 5 of the Food Storage Depot, Bindukuri, under the Food Corporation of India(FCI), Divisional Office, Tezpur; the loss so occasioning of materials stored in the Sheds being relatable to the period, the petitioner, herein, had held the charge of the said Sheds; it is contended that the disciplinary authority after drawing up a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of Regulation 60 of the Food Corporation of India(Staff) Regulation, 1971, had proceeded to impose upon the petitioner; the penalty of recovery of an amount to the tune of Rs. 90,000/-. 11. Mr. Singh, learned standing counsel, Food Corporation of India(FCI), has further contended that the estimated loss on account of the unjustified shortages found in Sheds No. 4 & 5 was assessed at Rs. Rs. 23,73,135.74. However, the disciplinary authority by taking a lenient view in the matter, had imposed upon the petitioner, a penalty of recovery of an amount of Rs. 90,000/- only. It was further contended that the loss so attributed to the petitioner, herein, was so done in-as-much as the shortage on account of the storage loss was found to be in excess of the loss normally occasioning on account of transit loss, driage for reduction in moisture, etc.. 90,000/- only. It was further contended that the loss so attributed to the petitioner, herein, was so done in-as-much as the shortage on account of the storage loss was found to be in excess of the loss normally occasioning on account of transit loss, driage for reduction in moisture, etc.. It is contended that the loss so attributed to the petitioner, was so done after a due assessment of the same, was so made by the duly constituted committees of the Food Corporation of India(FCI). 12. Mr. Singh, learned standing counsel, Food Corporation of India(FCI), has further submitted that the loss so occasioning in the matter with regard to the various Sheds of the Food Storage Depot, Bindukuri, under the Food Corporation of India(FCI), Divisional Office, Tezpur, proceedings came to be instituted against 11(eleven) employees including the petitioner, herein. It is projected by Mr. Singh, that in respect of other delinquents also, similar recoveries were so directed and accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner, herein, was not the only employee picked-up for any differential treatment and the respondent Corporation had proceeded against all the employees involved, in the matter. 13. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also duly perused the materials made available on record. 14. The facts, as noticed hereinabove, is not in dispute. 15. The allegations so levelled against the petitioner in the said memorandum of charge, dated 22.07.2019, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT OR MISBEHAVIOUR IN SUPPORT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR, TAG-II SHED ASSISTANT OF SHED NO.4&5, FSD, BINDUKURI UNDER FCI, DISTRICT OFFICE, TEZPUR. Shri Pradeep Kumar, TAG-II while working as Shed Assistant at Shed no.4 & 5 of FSD, Bindukuri under FCI, DO, Tezpur during the period from 11.04.2017 till completion of Zero PV i.e. Oct 2017 in respective sheds had acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Corporation in as much as he failed to maintain absolute integrity & devotion to duty to serve the Corporation honestly & faithfully and to safeguard the interest of the Corporation by committing gross irregularities that led to huge unjustified storage loss to the tune of 723.44862 Qtls. Rice Gr-A in respect of Shed no.4&5 at FSD Bindukuri and hence financial loss of Rs.23,73,135.74 to the Corporation. Rice Gr-A in respect of Shed no.4&5 at FSD Bindukuri and hence financial loss of Rs.23,73,135.74 to the Corporation. Shed No. Storage loss as per Zero PV (In Qtl.) Justified storage loss (in Qtl.) Quantity of Storage loss for which responsibility is to be fixed (In Qıl.) Financial loss (as per economic cost of 2017-18) 4 253.97180 251.08830 2.88350 Rs. 9,458.77 5 1156.90383 436.33871 720.56512 Rs.23,63,676.97 16. The petitioner, herein, had in response to the memorandum of charge, dated 22.07.2019, submitted his written statement on 05.08.2019, highlighting the reasons for the loss occasioning of the stored foodgrains in Sheds No. 4 & 5. The petitioner, by highlighting the nature of the duties required to be discharged by him, had contended that he was not responsible for the receipt and issue of stocks, preparation of ledgers, and accordingly, he cannot be held to be responsible for the loss so occasioning. The petitioner had also clarified that he had made certain entries in the receipt and issue register under the instruction of his superiors. However, such entries made by the petitioner being so made without actual verification of the stock position; the same cannot be held against him. 17. The petitioner, herein, in the present proceeding, has also projected that the storage condition of the Sheds under his charge, were not conducive for storage of foodgrains and the same had also contributed towards shortage occasioning in the matter. 18. The disciplinary authority on receipt of the written statement of the petitioner, herein, proceeded to take note of all the contentions so raised by the petitioner in the matter. After noticing the contentions so raised by the petitioner, herein, in the matter; the disciplinary authority proceeded to draw the following conclusions: “After going through the Article of Charges, Statement of Reply made by Shri Pradeep Kumar, TAG-II and relevant records, the undersigned comes to the conclusion that the charged official has worked as Assistant in shed no. 4 & 5, FSD Bindukuri and it is evident that storage loss detected to such an extent in Shed no. 4 & 5 during Zero PV is not justifiable by the reasons cited by the CO in his reply. Also the storage loss was very high as compared to the corresponding storage period i.e. storage loss does not commensurate with the storage period and driage.” 19. 4 & 5 during Zero PV is not justifiable by the reasons cited by the CO in his reply. Also the storage loss was very high as compared to the corresponding storage period i.e. storage loss does not commensurate with the storage period and driage.” 19. By drawing the above conclusions; the disciplinary authority proceeded to impose upon the petitioner, herein, the penalty of recovery of an amount of Rs. 90,000/- and the same was directed to be recovered from his salary in 10 equal installments. As noticed hereinabove, the appeal as preferred by the petitioner in the matter against the order, dated 28.02.2020, of the disciplinary authority; came to be rejected by the appellate authority, vide order, dated 11.07.2023. 20. It is contended in the present proceeding that the recovery of the amount involved, has already been effected from the monthly salaries of the petitioner. 21. The penalty having been so imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority vide order, dated 28.02.2020, it would be required to examine the conclusions so drawn by the disciplinary authority for imposition of the said penalty upon the petitioner. A perusal of the conclusion, extracted hereinabove, would go to show that the disciplinary authority had only drawn a conclusion to the effect that the storage loss detected to such an extent in Sheds No. 4 & 5 during Zero PV, was not justified by the reasons cited by the petitioner in his response. It was further concluded that the storage loss was very high as compared to the corresponding storage period i.e. storage loss does not commensurate with the storage period and driage. While drawing the said conclusion which on the face of it, is clear to be general in nature, no conclusion came to be so drawn towards establishing the role of the petitioner, herein, for the said loss so occasioning. Given the attending factors involved, merely on account of the fact that the sheds, in question, was under the charge of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority in the absence of materials on record indicating a clear role of the petitioner for the loss so occasioning, could not have proceeded to hold the petitioner, guilty of the allegations levelled against him. 22. 22. The disciplinary authority in his said order, dated 28.02.2020, has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the loss so occasioning in the Sheds under the charge of the petitioner, had so occasioned for actions which the petitioner, either, had done and/or had failed to do. Accordingly, the conclusions drawn being presumptive in nature; the same, in the considered view of this Court, could not have formed the basis of the satisfaction drawn by the disciplinary authority for imposition of a penalty upon the petitioner, herein. 23. The contentions so raised by the petitioner in his written statement although noticed by the disciplinary authority in the order, dated 28.02.2020, was, however, not appreciated while drawing satisfaction with regard to the guilt of the petitioner in the matter. 24. The provisions of Regulation 60(1)(d) of the Food Corporation of India(Staff) Regulation, 1971, being relevant, in the present proceeding; is extracted hereinbelow: “Food Corporation of India(Staff) Regulation, 1971 60. Procedure for imposing minor penalties: (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-Regulation 59, no order imposing on an employee any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Regulation 54 shall be made except after: (a)............................. (b)............................. (c)............................. (d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour.” 25. A perusal of the said provisions of the Regulation 60(1)(d) of the Food Corporation of India(Staff) Regulation, 1971, would go to reveal that even in the case of a minor penalty proceeding; the disciplinary authority is required to record a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour. On examination of the order, dated 28.02.2020, in the light of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour so levelled against the petitioner vide the memorandum of charge, dated 22.07.2019; it is seen that the disciplinary authority had failed to record any finding with regard to such imputation of misconduct and/or misbehaviour so levelled against him vide the memorandum of charge, dated 22.07.2019. In the said memorandum of charge, dated 22.07.2019; the misconduct that was alleged against the petitioner was to the effect that he had acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Corporation in as much as he failed to maintain absolute integrity & devotion to duty to serve the Corporation honestly & faithfully and to safeguard the interest of the Corporation by committing gross irregularities that led to huge unjustified storage loss, however, a perusal of the order, dated 28.02.2020, would reveal that no finding came to be recorded by the disciplinary authority with regard to the same. As observed hereinabove, the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority in the said order, dated 28.02.2020, are presumptive and general in nature, without there being anything brought on record connecting the petitioner to the loss so occasioning in the Sheds under his charge. 26. At this stage, the Circular, dated 12.02.2008, so relied upon by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the matter and issued by the General Manager(Stocks), Food Corporation of India(FCI), New Delhi, is required to be considered. 27. The said Circular, dated 12.02.2008, provides in clear terms that the quality and quantity of losses of foodgrains during storage are obvious and unavoidable due to natural factors beyond the control of its employees. It was further stipulated in the said Circular, dated 12.02.2008, that no recovery in respect of storage and transit loss, should be effected without theft/pilferage and mala fide being proved. Accordingly, the said Circular, dated 12.02.2008, would assume significance in adjudication of the present proceeding. 28. The Circular, dated 12.02.2008, issued by the respondent authorities, reads, as under: “FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA HEADQUARTERS : NEWDELHI 16-10 BARAKHAMBALANE NEWDELHI-110001 No.STK/35(3)/07/54 Date: 12th February, 2008 Executive Director(Zone) Food Corporation of India,ZO Noida/Chennai/Mumbai Kolkata/Guwahati All General Manager(Region) Food Corporation of India Regional office. Subject: Adherence of procedural formalities in storage & Transit Loss Cases- Fixation of responsibility- Regarding. Reference: Hqr's Circular No.STK/23/1(7)/(NORMS/02)dated 7.06.2002 Sir, Your attention is invited to Hqrs instructions issued vide Circular referred above wherein it was inter-alia emphasized that the existing procedure for fixing accountability for storage and transit mentioned in Hqrs' Circulars dated 6.11.1998 & 24.12.1999 would continue to be followed. Reference: Hqr's Circular No.STK/23/1(7)/(NORMS/02)dated 7.06.2002 Sir, Your attention is invited to Hqrs instructions issued vide Circular referred above wherein it was inter-alia emphasized that the existing procedure for fixing accountability for storage and transit mentioned in Hqrs' Circulars dated 6.11.1998 & 24.12.1999 would continue to be followed. Of late, the Staff Bodies have been expressing resentment over the manner in which the responsibility is fixed on the employees by issuing chargesheets and making recoveries from them for abnormal/unjustified S & T losses arbitrarily and without following the procedural formalities as required under the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, The Unions have also been emphasizing that no employee be made responsible for such foodgrains losses unless his/her involvement in theft and misappropriation is proved beyond doubt on the plea that the quality and quantity losses of foodgrains during storage are obvious and unavoidable due to natural factors beyond the control of employees. Also there is no point to make employees responsible for transit losses and to ask them to visit at the destination to verify the shortages while they have already got the consignment verified from the representatives of insurance company and obtained the certificate to this effect. The whole matter was disclosed by Food Corporation of India(FCI) Management with the BKNK Sangh and FCIES Union in a joint meeting at FCI Hqrs on 28.12.2007, wherein after detailed deliberations, it has been decided that henceforth it would be ensured by all concerned authorities that no recovery in respect of storage and transit losses should be effected without the theft/pilferage and malafide being proved. All the competent authorities are also advised that they should pass speaking orders establishing malafide etc. On the part of each employee while imposing penalties/making recoveries from the field staff consequent upon investigation of abnormal S &T loss cases. These instructions may be strictly followed. The instructions issued vide Hqrs' Circular letter of even No. dated 31.01.2008/1.2.2008 are hereby withdrawn. This issues with the approval of CMD. Yours faithfully Sd/- (VPC Menon) General Manager (Stocks) For ED(Stocks)" 29. The said Circular, dated 12.02.2008, clearly reflects the intent of the respondent authorities to hold the employees responsible in respect of the storage and transit loss only if their involvement in theft and misappropriation is proved. This issues with the approval of CMD. Yours faithfully Sd/- (VPC Menon) General Manager (Stocks) For ED(Stocks)" 29. The said Circular, dated 12.02.2008, clearly reflects the intent of the respondent authorities to hold the employees responsible in respect of the storage and transit loss only if their involvement in theft and misappropriation is proved. In the present proceeding, it is an admitted position that there is no allegation of theft or misappropriation against the petitioner and further, there is no allegation against him that on account of his failure; theft/pilferage had occasioned in the Sheds under his charge. 30. This Court, at this stage, would also like to observe that the materials brought on record, does not reveal that the respondents Corporation had set up scientific methods in the Sheds wherein the petitioner, herein, was posted for prevention of loss on account of natural causes. Accordingly, the contribution of such facts for the loss of stored foodgrains so occasioning were not factored in by the disciplinary authority while drawing satisfaction for imposition of penalty upon the petitioner, herein. 31. In view of the above conclusions and also appreciating the stipulations so made in the Circular, dated 12.02.2008, and in the absence of any allegation of theft/pilferage so levelled against the petitioner, herein; this Court is of the considered view that the penalty so imposed upon him vide order, dated 28.02.2020, cannot be sustained and accordingly, the order, dated 28.02.2020, stands set aside along with the order, dated 11.07.2023, passed by the appellate authority. 32. Having interfered with the order, dated 28.02.2020, it is directed that the recovery so made from the monthly salaries of the petitioner, herein, of the penalty amount of Rs. 90,000/- so imposed upon him; be refunded to him within a period of 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 33. The petitioner, in the present proceeding, has also raised a grievance with regard to the denial to him, of his due promotion and further, his supersession for such promotion by his juniors. 34. 33. The petitioner, in the present proceeding, has also raised a grievance with regard to the denial to him, of his due promotion and further, his supersession for such promotion by his juniors. 34. In the event, the petitioner, herein, was so considered for promotion to the next higher grade/cadre during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding so instituted against him and/or during the period, the penalty of recovery imposed upon him, was in currency and the findings of the Departmental Promotion Committee(DPC)/Selection Committee, insofar as, it concerns the petitioner, was kept in a ‘sealed cover’; the respondent authorities would now open the ‘sealed cover’ and thereafter, basing on the recommendations so made therein, and in the event; the same is in favour of the petitioner, herein, he be promoted to the next higher grade/cadre with effect from the date, his juniors were so promoted with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority, etc.. In the event, the recommendation of the petitioner is not in favour of the promotion of the petitioner, the said aspect be informed to the petitioner, by way of a speaking order. 35. In the event, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)/selection committee had not made any recommendation in favour of the petitioner, herein; the respondent authorities would now convene a review meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee(DPC)/selection committee and consider the case of the petitioner for such promotion with effect from the date his juniors were so promoted and in the event, the petitioner, herein, is recommended for such promotion; the respondent authorities shall promote the petitioner to the next higher grade/cadre with effect from the date his juniors were so promoted by applying the principle of “Next Below Rule” with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority, etc.. It is provided that in the event, the petitioner is not so recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee(DPC)/Selection Committee, the said aspect of the matter be informed to the petitioner by way of a speaking order. 36. The directions so passed hereinabove with regard to the promotion of the petitioner to the next higher cadre/grade, be carried-out and orders thereon, issued within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 37. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.