Ranganathan, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave from an order dt/- 2nd Sept. 1980 of the Allahabad High Court. By the above order, the High Court had dismissed in limine the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging his removal from the service of the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation').
(2.) The appellant was the District Manager of the Corporation at Allahabad from Dec. 1975 till April, 1978. During the period from Dec. 1975 till the middle of May, 1976, he also held additional charge as its District Manager at Gorakhpur. The charge against the appellant was that during the period he functioned as District Manager, Allahabad, "he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion of duty and committed misconduct inasmuch as he showed undue favour to M/s. Iqbal Ahmed Ansari by purchasing pateramats from the said firm at the rate of Rs. 7 per 100 sq. ft. up to 15-5-1976 and after that at Rs. 8.20 per 100 sq. ft. without calling for any quotations and by ignoring the rate fixed by the Regional Manager, Lucknow at Rs. 6.74 per 10 square meters and thus caused total loss of Rs. 24,900.35 to the Corporation". An inquiry on the above charge was conducted by an officer of the Central Vigilance Commission. He found that the appellant knew that another firm, M/s. D. N. Purwar, had supplied two consignments at the rate of Rs. 6.74 per 100 sq. ft. (slightly above the ceiling prescribed by the Regional Office) and that this firm had also given a letter on 1-7-1976 expressing its willingness to supply more patermats on the same rates, terms and conditions. But despite this, the appellant had not made any attempts to negotiate and settle any rate with M/s. lqbal Ahmad Ansari but agreed to give the said supplier the rate demanded by him on 16-7-1976, viz. Rs. 7 per 100 sq. ft. till 11-5-1976 and Rs. 8.20 per 100 sq. ft. thereafter. The officer noted that the Gorakhpur Office had purchased pateramats at the same rates but he considered that this had been forced on the appellants successor at Gorakhpur who had no alternative but to have the supplies already taken in by the appellant regularised. He, therefore, held that the charge against the appellant was substantiated by the evidence. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and, by an order dt/- 9-6-1980, the Board of Directors of the Corporation imposed the major penalty of removal from service on the petitioner.
(3.) Several contentions had been raised in the petition for special leave to the Court. We, however, consider it unnecessary to go into these contentions as, in our view, the order of removal of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Normally this Court does not interfere with findings of fact arrived at in disciplinary proceedings. But leave to appeal having been granted, we have looked into the matter and find that in the present case the Enquiry Officer has reached his conclusion on no evidence and without a proper appreciation of the background and circumstances in which the appellant had to function at the relevant time.;