Ashok Bhushan, Virendra Singh - (1.) HEARD Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Satya Prakash appearing for the Food Corporation of India. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of punishment dated 22/23rd May, 1995 passed by respondent No.2, the appellate order dated 8th December, 2010 modifying the punishment order and the order dated 26th February, 2001 rejecting the review application. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-Ill (D) on 3rd May, 1969. He was subsequently promoted as Assistant Manager (Depot). A show cause/memorandum dated 30th April, 1992 was received by the petitioner which was replied. The respondents initiated departmental inquiry and charge-sheet dated 5th April, 1994 was issued under Regulation 58 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation 1971). The Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. The Inquiry Officer after conducting the inquiry submitted the inquiry report dated 22nd February, 1995. The Inquiry Officer opined that none of the charges have been found proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority forwarded the copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner asking that if he wishes to make a representation, he may do so within fifteen days. The said letter was issued on 11th March, 1995. The petitioner after receiving the said letter, submitted his representation praying for exoneration relying on the inquiry report. It was stated by the petitioner that Inquiry Officer has discussed the entire evidence on record produced by the learned presenting officer and found the charges not to be proved. The disciplinary authority passed punishment order dated 22/23rd May, 1995 reducing the petitioner in rank from A.M.(D) to AG-1 (D) with future ban on promotion. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which appeal was decided on 8th December, 1998 modifying the punishment to some extent. The petitioner filed a review application which was rejected. Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenging the orders passed in disciplinary proceedings, has submitted that when the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from all the charges, the disciplinary authority could not have, without communicating his reasons for disagreeing with the findings, awarded punishment. He submits that the petitioner at no point of time was given an opportunity by the disciplinary authority to submit his explanation with regard to the reasons of disagreement of the disciplinary authority. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that under Regulation 59 of the Regulation 1971 in the event the disciplinary authority disagrees with the finding of the Inquiry Officer, it will be incumbent on him to put the delinquent to notice informing him reasons for disagreement so that the delinquent may be given an opportunity to have his say. He submits that since in the present case no such opportunity was given, the punishment order is liable to be set-aside on this ground alone. In support of his submission, Sri Budhwar has placed reliance on judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (1999)7 SCC 739, Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998)7 SCC UPLBEC(2)-98 84 and State Bank of India and others v. Arvind K. Shukla, reported in 2001(89) FLR 849.
(3.) SRI Satya Prakash appearing for the Food Corporation of India, refuting the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that even though no notice was given by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner before awarding punishment but the said issue was considered by the appellate authority and the appellate authority has suitably modified the punishment, hence the petitioner's grievance can be said to have been fully satisfied. He submits that only requirement under Regulation 59 is recording of reason by the disciplinary authority which having been recorded, the order is not vitiated. SRI Satya Prakash has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Madras v. A.R. SRInivasan, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1827 and in the case of State of Rajasthan v. M.C. Saxena, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1150. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;