Rakesh Sharma - (1.) -
(2.) HEARD Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri T.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Singh, advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the Food Corporation of India, opposite parties. The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Grade-I (Depot) in the Food Corporation of India, has assailed the order of dismissal issued on 16.3 .2000 by the Senior Regional Manager and the order dated 14/18.7.2000 passed by the appellate authority, dismissing his appeal. The petitioner was suspended vide an order dated 22.9.1999. He had assailed this order of suspension by filing Writ Petition No. 5612 (S/S) of 1999. The said Writ Petition (No. 5612 (S/S) of 1999) has also been clubbed with this writ petition and both the petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. This Court has been pleased to stay the operation the order of suspension by passing an interim order on 28.10.1999. The Court was prima facie of the opinion that the order of suspension was not passed by the appointing authority (i.e. Regional Manager) of the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of dismissal is wholly arbitrary and illegal; no proper formal and regular enquiry was held against the petitioner allowing him opportunity to meet his case effectively; the penalty has been imposed on mere speculation and it was a case of 'no evidence' against the petitioner. The penalty imposed is also disproportionate and does not commensurate with the gravity of the charges. The petitioner had been working as Assistant in the service of the Food Corporation of India since 1971 at the time of his dismissal. He was posted as Assistant Grade-I and functioning as Depot incharge, PCF Godown and Mandi-yard Godown at Powayan, District-Shahjahanpur at the relevant time i.e. during 1994-95 and 1995-96. In fact, an additional charge of PCF Godown, Unit Powayan was given to the petitioner, for which he was not prepared. No facility of an Assistant was provided to petitioner to manage three units, Godown of the Corporation in District Shahjahanpur. However, the petitioner managed to discharge his duties properly in PCF Godown units. After about 3-4 years, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge-sheet on 4.12.1998 under Regulation 58 of F.C.I. (Staff) Regulations, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that the petitioner while posted and functioning as Depot incharge PCF Godown and Mandiyard Powayan, district Shahjahanpur during 1994-95 and 1995-96 failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an FCI employee. It was further alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated 2898-10-1000 qtls. of wheat from PCF godown and Mandiyard CAP complex, Powayan, during the above said period. He has tried to hide this misconduct by showing the said quantity as storage loss ranging from 1% to 3.07%. The petitioner had committed this misconduct in connivance with Sri A.A. Wasti, TA II. He contravened the Regulations 31 and 32 read with 32A of the Regulations. The petitioner had submitted that it was not possible for a single person to look after all the three units simultaneously and to keep proper vigil on the affairs of each and every godown in his charge. However, he continued to manage the PCF godown unit at Powayan district Shahjahanpur. According to him, it was a covered godown, but was not a fit place for storage of food grains. The petitioner had brought this fact to the notice of Enquiry Officer and punishing authority. He had also placed a copy of the report of the committee dated 25.9.1992 before them but his defence was not considered by the Enquiry Officer and the punishing authority. The petitioner had himself written to the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Shahjahanpur, who had also reported on 1.7.1994, vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition, that the said godown was not fit for storage of food grains. The petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court, the report of the above said committee and the letter written by the District Manager to the Joint Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Lucknow, which indicated that the losses in the stock had occurred due to storage of foodgrains in a most unscientific way. As per petitioner, due to high percentage of moisture, the godowns were unfit for storage of the foodgrains. The petitioner had demonstrated before the Enquiry Officer that there was no negligence on his part. The godowns were not properly covered or protected. In fact, the bags of foodgrains were arranged, stored in open land and thereafter they were covered by canvas or tarpaulin. The committee of the technical staff of the Regional Office, Lucknow had also visited the PCF, godowns in Mandiyard to check up the correct position. This committee had also submitted the report that both the godowns were bad and there was likelihood of deterioration of the foodgrains stored therein. It also reported that there was non-availability of technical staff; proper staff etc. was not appointed. The report of this committee dated 5.8.1995 was also brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer and the same has been read in the Court. The District Manager taking note of this state of affairs made inspection and a specific order on 26.2.1996 regarding contents of the godown was issued on 8.7.1996 to the concerned authority of the Food Corporation of India for taking appropriate action. The petitioner had been apprising the appropriate authority regarding the condition of the godown and food grains stored therein. On receiving the charge-sheet, the petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to supply him the relevant documents; some of these were cited in the charge-sheet and the other were required for submission of a proper defence. The petitioner has led the Court through the application submitted by him seeking supply of documents.;