S. K. Singh, J. - (1.) -By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Zonal Manager (North), Food Corporation of India/respondent No. 2 by which, he has imposed a penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,99,897 against the petitioner and also his reversion to the post of A.G.-II (D) for a period of four years.
(2.) BRIEF facts for decision of the writ petition can be summarised thus : The petitioner has been working as Assistant Manager (Depot) with the respondents, Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and while, he was posted at the Food Storage Depot, Gola, it is alleged that during 1994-95 and 1995-96, he failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and thus the petitioner was proceeded on five charges in respect to which charge-sheet was issued to him. On submission of reply and completion of enquiry proceedings, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 31.7.2002 which has been served on the petitioner along with show cause notice dated 16.10.2002 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted his detail reply to the finding so given against him by the Enquiry Officer and in respect to the show cause notice referred above, upon which the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order stated above, the validity of which is to be examined in this petition. When the writ petition was presented, in presence of learned counsel for the respondents, time was allowed to file counter-affidavit upon which, pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and now on exchange of counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavits, as jointly prayed, the matter is being heard and is being finally decided. It has to be mentioned at this stage that although learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy but with the consent of parties, arguments were heard on the question of preliminary objection and also on merits and thus, both the issues are to be dealt together.
(3.) HEARD Sri Arvind Srivastava who appeared for the petitioner and Sri Satya Prakash, learned advocate who appeared for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition is concerned, on the facts of the present case, it is not available to the respondents as they have never pressed this issue when the writ petition was entertained and pleadings were called upon and thus, now after filing of the counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit, unless this Court feels that serious disputed questions of facts are to be adjudicated and a finding of fact is to be recorded, the writ petition is not to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. It is also argued that the action of respondents is in clear violation of principles of natural justice and the proceedings are without jurisdiction inasmuch as, the disciplinary authority while punishing the petitioner has relied on the finding given by the Enquiry Officer which are beyond the charges on which the petitioner was proceeded. It is then argued that the petitioner was proceeded on five charges and all related to misappropriation in the manner as detailed in separate charges but so far Charge Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are concerned, the Enquiry Officer has clearly exonerated the petitioner and so far Charge Nos. 1 and 4 are concerned, no misappropriation has been found causing any financial loss to the Corporation and the only thing which was found against the petitioner is that the petitioner has not carefully discharged his duties. It is submitted that on the aforesaid finding, at the most, it can be said that the petitioner was slightly negligent in discharging the duty but as that was not the charge on which the petitioner was proceeded and in any view of the matter, that cannot be said to be the misconduct warranting the impugned punishment. It is then submitted that the petitioner has given his reply to the show cause notice on receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer by which he was expected to submit his response in respect to the finding relating to Item Nos. 1 and 4 but the disciplinary authority even without showing his disagreement and giving any reasoning for dis-agreeing with the Enquiry Officer in respect to Item Nos. 2, 3 and 5, while passing the order of punishment by disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, petitioner has been held to be responsible for the aforesaid charges also which the learned counsel for petitioner submits is clearly impermissible. It is argued that the disciplinary authority has not applied his mind to the fact and exhaustive reply/representation submitted to the show cause notice and he in a most arbitrary and apparently in a routine manner, has discharged the job of concluding the disciplinary proceedings by awarding the impugned punishment which on its plain examination will satisfy the Court that the disciplinary authority has not cared even to look into the petitioner's detail reply and the facts so pleaded which clearly results in violation of principles of natural justice.;