S.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Sri M.N. Pandey has directed this writ petition against the order dated 30 -1 -1985, annexure 1, passed by the Managing Director of the Food Corporation of India, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. At the time of passing the order of dismissal the petitioner was holding the post of Deputy General Manager in the Lucknow Regional Office of the Corporation. The order has been challenged on two main grounds: - - 1. It has not been passed by the competent authority, and
(2.) IT is not a speaking order and is violative of Regulation 59(2) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, for short 'Staff Regulation', framed under section 45 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 (37 of 1964). On 10 -4 -1952 the petitioner joined service under the Government of India in the department of Food and Agriculture as Senior Godown Keeper. Later he was promoted as Godown Superintendent and thereafter as Assistant Director (General). With effect from 1 -3 -1969 the petitioner was posted in the Food Corporation of India as Senior Assistant Manager (General). On 15 -1 -1976 order was passed formally transferring the petitioner to the Corporation from Government of India. This transfer was made under Section 12 -A of the Act. Before the petitioner was formally transferred to the Corporation he was promoted in the Corporation to the post of Deputy Manager (General) with effect from 21 -5 -1973. On 31 -3 -1982 charge -sheet was issued to the petitioner containing five articles of charges. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. The enquiry into the charges was conducted by Sri A.A. Faridi who was appointed Enquiry Officer. Through his report, annexure 2, he exonerated the petitioner of all the charges levelled against him. The Managing Director, however, did not agree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and he passed order of dismissal which was communicated to the petitioner through memorandum dated 30 -1 -1984, annexure 1, under the signature of Sri M.S. Yadav, Manager (Vigilance). This memorandum purports to have been issued under the orders of the Managing Director. It mentions that the Managing Director, after due consideration of the enquiry report, the relevant records and the evidence produced during enquiry has not agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter it proceeds to say: - - ....Shri M.N. Pandey while functioning as District Manager, Kanpur allowed the transportation work of Kanpur City on the basis of quotations on day -to -day basis which was a temporary measure but continued for over 2 1/2 years which was beyond his jurisdiction and powers. He, therefore, exceeded the powers delegated to him. The arrangements made by him in this regard were not covered by any contract either transport contract or HTC contract as laid down by the Corporation. The officer has caused loss in allowing a situation where bullock -carts have been paid at the rates of trucks without proper justification. The Managing Director, has, therefore, held that the charges to the extent stated above are fully established against Shri Pandey. He has, therefore, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on the said Shri Pandey with immediate effect. The petitioner filed the instant petition on 3 -2 -1984. As noticed hereinbefore, dismissal order was passed on 30 -1 -1984. The petitioner was due to retire on the very next day viz., 31 -1 -1984. 2. The petition has been contested on behalf of the opposite party. Sri S.T. Sriniwasan, Deputy Manager (Legal and Vigilance) in Food Corporation of India, New Delhi has filed counter -affidavit. In the counter -affidavit the factual averments mentioned hereinbefore have not been controverted. It has been asserted that in view of the amendment made in the Staff Regulations with effect from 6 -2 -1981 through notification dated 10 -2 -1981, the Managing Director was competent to pass the impugned order of dismissal from service. It has been denied that the impugned order is not a speaking order. It is stated that the Managing Director had held charge No. 1 to be proved and the reasons therefor are indicated in the impugned order. On this basis it is pleaded that the order is not violative of Regulation 59(2). It is also asserted in the counter -affidavit that the impugned order was appealable and in view of the availability of the alternative remedy the present petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder -affidavit to controvert the stand taken in the counter -affidavit.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points arise for determination: - - 1. Whether the Managing Director was competent to pass the impugned order of dismissal from service; 2. Whether the impugned order is violative of Regulation 59(2), 3. Whether appeal was maintainable against the impugned order and whether on that account the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. We shall take up the points in the serial in which they have been stated above. Competent Authority:;