R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) Petitioner, by means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a writ. Order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.1.1998 (fax) sent by the Deputy Manager (Vigilance), intimating about imposition of penalty of reduction In pay by one stage for two years having no effect in postponing his future increments after expiry of two years and withholding promotion of the petitioner from Technical Assistant Grade II to Technical Assistant Grade I and the detailed order dated 20/21.1.1998 passed by the Zonal Manager (North), imposing the aforesaid penalty. Prayer for a direction not to give effect to the aforesaid orders has also been made.
(2.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant Grade III by direct recruitment in the Food Corporation of India. It was on 1.12.1980 that he was promoted to the post of Technical Assistant Grade II and was posted at Unit No. 1. Shed No. II of the Food Storage Depot, Rosar Kothi, Shahjahanpur. The duty of the petitioner at the above place was checking of incoming and outgoing stocks and for keeping the quality control of the food grains received at the Food Storage Depot. At the said place, one Shri Raghuvendra Singh was also posted as Technical Assistant Grade-I. There were several sheds at the aforesaid place for storage of goods received from the various units of Food Corporation of India. It was on 30.7.1987 that 17056 wheat bags were received from Gopal Industry, Powayan of Unit-I Shed No. II and Unit No. II, Shed No. III etc. The said stock of wheat was loaded in railway wagons for dispatch to Gorakhpur. According to the petitioner, stock of wheat from Shed No. II where the petitioner was posted was not loaded in any one of two railway wagons, namely wagon Nos. WR 81785 and W.R. 62566. Thus, the petitioner had no concern with the aforesaid loading of wheat, he was not even present at the time of loading of wheat into the wagons. Subsequently, on a complaint received, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and charge sheet was issued to him on 1.6.1988. The main allegation levelled against him was that 620 bags of damaged wheat were loaded in the aforesaid wagons. Similar charge sheets were served upon Shri Rajeshwar Singh, Assistant Manager (Depot), Shri Riyaz Akhtar, Technical Assistant Grade-1, Shri R.D. Ram, Technical Assistant, Aidal Singh and others (seven persons). The disciplinary proceedings against the aforesaid persons were held separately and independently from each other. The petitioner submitted his explanation in reply of the charge sheet handed over to him, emphatically denying the loading of sub-standard or damaged wheat. It was stated that he never dispatched the wheat in question. It was also stated the petitioner was posted at Unit-I, Shed No. II, Rosar Kothi, Shahjahanpur wherefrom a separate consignment of only 3330 bags of wheat was dispatched, which was in effectly sound condition in a separate wagon and not in the wagons in question. The inquiry was conducted by Shri Kedar Nath Dhanvik, Deputy Manager (General), Regional Office, Lucknow under the orders of the disciplinary authority (Senior Regional Manager, U.P. Region, Lucknow). The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry against the petitioner came to the conclusion that the wheat in question was not loaded by or in presence of the petitioner at Unit-I, Shed No. II, but the same was loaded at other sheds with which petitioner had absolutely no concern. It was also held that 330 bags of wheat dispatched from Shed No. II, Units No. 1 were not loaded in the wagons in question. Having recorded the aforesaid findings. It was held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved vide report dated 27.8.1994. The Senior Regional Manager, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, accepted the equilty report and agreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and exonerated the petitioner from the charges, referred to above, vide order dated 4.5.1995, which has become final as against the same no appeal or revision was filed by anybody. As stated above, the enquiries were held against the persons charged separately, the Enquiry Officer after conducting the disciplinary proceedings against one Shri Aidal Singh, Technical Assistant Grade-III held the charges levelled against him were proved. He was also held guilty of dereliction of his duty while loading sub-standard damaged wheat into the wagons in question, the said findings were also accepted by the disciplinary authority and he was awarded penality of reduction of pay by two stages for three years with cumulative effect. Against the order of punishment passed against Shri Aidal Singh, he filed an appeal under Regulation 68 of the Staff Regulations of Food Corporation of India, 1971, for short the Regulation, before the Zonal Manager (North), New Delhi. On receipt of memo of appeal, the Appellate Authority without examining the record relating to the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, issued fresh memorandum of charges dated 6/9.11.1995 to the petitioner in purported exercise of power under Regulation 74(1), Clause (b) of the Regulations, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why proposed penalty should not be imposed upon him. In the aforesaid, memorandum, vague charges were levelled against the petitioner taking the view that in his opinion, all officials deployed at rail heads and dispatching unit were jointly and collectively responsible for loading of damaged stocks. It was wrongly noticed that common proceeding was held against all the officials of the Corporation as actually separate enquiries were conducted against each one of them and separate reports were submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner again submitted his explanation denying the charges levelled against him and asserting that he was not at all responsible for loading of sub-standard wheat. There was nothing on the record to show that the case of the petitioner was similar to the case of Shri Aidal Singh. The petitioner, therefore, submitted that he was not aware of any appeal filed by Shri Aidal Singh and the points raised by him in his defence. The petitioner emphasized that he was posted on a different rail head and not at the shed wherefrom the wheat in question was loaded. It was reiterated that the petitioner loaded only 330 bags of wheat from his shed No. II, which were perfectly in good condition, in different wagons and not in wagons in question. He also pointed out that findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were quite correct and there was no justification for issuing second charge sheet to him. It was on 31.12.1997 that the petitioner was promoted as Technical Assistant Grade-I from the post of Technical Assistant Grade-II by the Food Corporation of India along with other officials. The petitioner was duly intimated about the aforesaid promotion order on 1.1.1998 by the District Manager of the Food Corporation of India at Bareilly. It was on 15.1.1998 that a fax massage was sent by the regional office of the Food Corporation of India, Lucknow with a copy to the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Bareilly informing that the Zonal Manager has found the petitioner guilty and ordered the imposition of penalty of reduction pay by one stage for two years, which will have no effect in postponing his future increments after expiry of two years. It was also informed through the above message that formal penalty order was being sent separately. It was on 21.2.1998 that the above noted order was served upon the petitioner whereby the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Technical Gradc-1 was withheld. As the impugned order was passed without conducting enquiry and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to produce evidence in his defence, the same was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and was also based on wrong facts, the petitioner had no option but to approach this Court and file the present petition.
(3.) The respondents, on receipt of the notice of the writ petition, filed a short counter affidavit, which was taken on record. By means of the short counter affidavit, the respondents have raised a preliminary objection regarding existence of statutory alternative remedy under Regulations 68 and 69 of the Regulations. It was contended that the present petition was filed without exhaustion of alternative remedy, the same was. therefore, liable to be dismissed. This Court did not, under the facts and circumstances of the present case, attach any wight to the aforesaid preliminary objection and ultimately admitted the writ petition vide order dated 6.1.2000 holding that the impugned order was passed wholly without jurisdiction and without following the procedure prescribed for the same. The respondents, thereafter, filed detailed counter affidavit controverting the facts stated in the writ petition, in reply of which a rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the petitioner reiterating and reasserting the facts stated in the writ petition.;