RADHEY SHYAM MANDAL Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
LAWS(GAU)-1994-6-13
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on June 22,1994

RADHEY SHYAM MANDAL Appellant
VERSUS
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BHAGAT RAM VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SHRI ARIBAM BIJOYKUMAR SHARMA VS. THE STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2016-8-5] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This writ petition has been preferred by the writ petitioner challenging the validity of the enquiry proceedings initiated and conducted against the petitioner by the Food Corporation of India and the order of dismissal pasised on 20.11.88 and appelate order dated 28.12.88 passed by the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Assam Region and by the Zonal Manager (East), FCI, Calcutta respectively.
(2.)The Writ petitioner was serving as the Assistant Grade- I(Depot) under the respondent No. 1 at tike time of his dismissal from service with disqualification for future employment. While he was serving at Guwahati, the Regional Manager, respondent No. 3 drew up an enquiry proceeding under Regulation No. 58 of toe Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (for short the Regulation) whereby petitioner was charged pertaining to a lot of despatches made from Bongaigaon FSD during 1.8.85 to 5.10.85. The article of charges were as follows :-
"i) Despatch of 44 trucks of rice from FSD Bongaigaon to FSD Dimapur through FCI contractor during 1. 8. 85 to 5. 10. 85; ii) Non-issue of convoy note from the despatching end to the receiving end ; iii) That the petitioner did not inform the District Manager, Kokrajhar or the Senior Regional Manager, Guwahati about the day to day despatch particulars, inspite of Office In- structions; iv) That the petitioner did not obtain any confirmation from the consignee district about receipt of the aforesaid stock nor made any attempt to ascertain actual despatch."

(3.)The petitioner did not challenge the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of charge No. 1 & III as those were decided in his favour. He has mainly challenged the finding of the Inquiry Report on the ground that the Inquiry proceeding was perversed and finding was not based on the materials relevant to the charges and in arriving the decision the Inquiry Officer did not apply his mind at all in deciding the charge No. II & IV. That before commencement of the enquiry the petitioner by letter dated 31.10.88 requested the disciplinary authority as well as the Inquiry Officer to produce one Mr. N.K. Mitra, who was the Assistant Manager (D) at Dimapur at the relevant time and was competent to apprise the Inquiry Officer about the supply and receipt of goods in question. His requisition as material defence witness was refused by the respondent and non examination of the said witness prejudiced the case of the petitioner. Further allegation was that relevant documents relating to the despatch of the goods were not supplied to the petitioner to represent his case and non consideration of those documents vitiated the enquiry proceeding and the finding based on no material documents made the report liable to be quashed. Further allegation was that the petitioner was made a scape goat to cover the irregularity of the higher officers who were to be responsible for the transport, issuance etc. of the materials; that no proceeding was initiated against the District Manager, Dimapur who refused receipt of the goods on the ground of lack of store facilities from the concerned contractor at Dimapur, inspite of the direction by telegram dated 3.5.86 by the Senior Regional Manager of Regional Officer, Guwahati, nor was asked to explain the alleged incident; that the proceeding was initiated singularly against the petitioner meticulously with ulterior motives, setting free all other higher concerned officials of the Corporation.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.