- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the dis ciplinary authority exercising the jurisdiction contemplated under Regu lation 56 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 framed in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 45 of the Food Corporations Act, 1964 whereunder a penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect bad been awarded to the petitioner which order was later on affirmed by the appellate authority, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of both the orders with a direction to restore him back to the position which he would have occupied if the impugned orders have not been passed against him with all monetary and other benefits.
(2.) I have heard Sri S. K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition and Sri R. A. Rizvi, learned Counsel for the respondents in opposition to the writ petition. The relevant facts shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was holding the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I at the rice take over Centre at Shahabad in the district of Hardoi during the period 23-11-1984 to 11-2-1985. The Food Corporation of India had a storage depot at Hardoi. During the period in question 58260 bags of rice were purchased at Shahabad Centre. The peti tioner is alleged to have accepted taken over BRL rice stock with excessive broken and dehusk grains without checking the quality and got it accepted at the deport at Hardoi. The stock of rice purchased from Various centres other than Shahabad were also stacked in the Depot at Hardoi. The stock was mostly of rice raw common and rice fine. On an inspection. of the stock at the Depot by the vigilance squad samples were drawn and analysed which indicated that some stock was BRL on account of excessive percentage of broken/dehusk rice. In the circumstances, the petitioner was served with a chargesheet containing the charges that he had failed to maintain the absolute integrity, devotion to duty and had failed to serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully and acted in a manner which was un becoming of a corporation employee inasmuch as he had accepted/taken over BRL rice stock from State Government and also in connivance with the Technical Assistant posted at FSD/cwc Hardoi and got it accepted at the Depot. The petitioner denied the charges asserting that the rice stock taken over by him and delivered to the Food Storage Depot Hardoi fully conformed to the quality specification laid down by the Food Corporation of India and no complaint in respect thereof was made at any point of time by any of the consignees. It was also asserted that at the Depot large stocks of rice taken over from various rice mills and various purchase centres apart from the purchase centre at Shahabad had been brought and stacked. The rice bags stacked in the Depot brought from various Centres other than Shahabad were mixed up and it had become impossible to pick out the bags taken over by the petitioner and delivered by him to the depot. Various other pleas were also raised. The inquiry officer vide his report dated 15-7-1991 came to the conclusion that there was no record of CWC godown of Hardoi where Food Corporation of India stock was stored. It also came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that charged official was associated in joint sampling and joint analysis. It was also Found that there was no clear cut bifurcation as to how much stock was received from the charged official at FSD. , Hardoi, CWC Hardoi, and Bangarmau. It was observed in the report that there was no evidence of charged official conniving with anybody in accepting or getting accepted any BRL stock. However, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that out of 58,000 bags purchased by charged official only 300 bags were found BRL out of the stock at the Depot'where stocks of centres had also been stored/mixed together While recording the aforesaid finding, it was also observed that it was not possible to identify it stock of the charged official was BRL. The recommendations of the inquiry officer were to the following effect : "charges-not proved Charged official is found responsible for 300 bags BRL out of 58,000 bags purchased by him but 300 bags too are not identified as BRL being raised with others".
(3.) THE disciplinary authority vide its order dated 17-12-1991 accept ing the report of the inquiry officer imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on the petitioner. THE disciplinary autho rity in its order observed that the aforesaid conclusion had been reached after dispassionate examination of relevant records of the case, representation of the charged official and inquiry report and applying independent mind. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by means of an appeal, which was dismissed observing that the appellate authority had carefully considered the appeal with reference to the records of the case and also the comments of the disciplinary authority on the appeal and was of the opinion that the disciplinary authority had correctly held the charges levelled against the petitioner to have been proved and that the punishment awarded was not disproportionate to the proved misconduct.;