SEKHAR KANTI DEB Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-3-66
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on March 20,2018

Sekhar Kanti Deb Appellant
VERSUS
Food Corporation of India and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Hrishikesh Roy, J. - (1.) The petitioner is unrepresented when the case is called. He served as Assistant Grade-III (D) in the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and his grievance relate to the order dated 16.01.1998 (Annexure-2), whereby, the penalty of censure was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 54 read with Regulation 60 of the FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "FCI Regulation"). The aggrieved employee did not initially challenge the penalty nor he had approached the appellate authority. Instead he has filed this writ petition 12 years after he was penalized.
(2.) In the absence of the petitioner's lawyer, Mr. P.K. Roy, the learned standing counsel for the FCI points out that the censure penalty is challenged in the context of the denial of additional increment available for those employees with clean service record. The petitioner's name was initially shortlisted conditionally for grant of the additional increment on 12.08.1999, but because of the censure order against him, in the final list prepared on 07.12.2007 (Annexure-5), the petitioner's name was excluded, since he faced disciplinary action.
(3.) The additional increment made available to AG-III(D) employees of the FCI, under the Office Order dated 12.08.1999 is subject to fulfillment of the 7 conditions stipulated in the Office Order dated 12.08.1999. In the present case, the Condition Nos.2 and 3 being relevant, are extracted herein below, for ready reference:- "................................... 2) There should be no vigilance case pending against the official or the official should not be undergoing any tenure of penalty at the time he/she was eligible for grant of stagnation increment which could not be granted to him/her for administrative reasons. 3) No vigilance case is pending or contemplated on the date the effect of this increment is released by the Sr. Regional Manager or by the competent authority empowered to do so...................................";


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