N SAMPANGI REDDY S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD QUARTERS, 16-20 BARAKAMBA LANE NEW DELHI 110001

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER H.N. Nagamohan Das J. 1. This writ petition is flied calling in question the order of penalty dated 19.03.2012 - Annexure -T and the order of Appellate Authority dated 15.06.2010 Annexure -Z directing recovery of Rs. 1,42,865/ - from the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner. In the year 1965 the petitioner joined the service of respondent - Food Corporation of India as Assistant Grade III. In the year 2001 petitioner was working as Assistant Manager at Regional Office of respondent Corporation at Bangalore. On 14.03.2001 a charge memo was issued to the petitioner as per Annexure D alleging that on 03.05.1999 the petitioner sent a fax message to the District Manager at Hubli to obtain sanction letter from the existing contractor for loading - unloading and transportation of goods on the condition that the contractor will be paid at the rates to be awarded to the new contractor. This fax message sent by the petitioner resuiced in loss of Rs. 1,42,865/ - to the respondent Corporation. Being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner enquiry proceedings were initiated. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority by accepting the enquiry report passed the impugned order on penalty - Annexure T directing recovery of Rs. 1,42,865/ - from the terminal benefits of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order of penalty the petitioner filed a appeal and the same came to be dismissed as per Annexure Z dated 15.06.2010. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) HEARD arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

(3.) THE above undertaking Annexure A was given by the old contractor to tie; District Manager in the office of respondent Corporation at Hubli. This undertaking further specifies that the same was given on the basis of discussion by the Contractor with the District Manager at Hubli. Further it specifies that a copy of the undertaking was also sent to the Senior Regional Manager of the respondent Corporation at Bangalore. Pursuant to this undertaking the Regional Manager at Hubli permitted the contractor to lift the goods and transport the same to various destinations and by 03.05.1999 as many as 26 trips were carried out by the contractor. The consent letter Annexure A and the consequent transportation of the materials was 3 days earlier to the fax message sent by the petitioner. Therefore the loss if any accrued is not on account of the fax message sent by the petitioner but on account of entrusting the transportation work to the earlier contractor by taking the consent letter Annexure -A dated 29.04.1999 by the District Mc -,nar,r at Hub. The Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the _Appellate Authority failed to take this aspect of the matter in to consideration. Thus the entire approach of the respondent has resulted in failure of justice.