Daya Shankar Tripathi, J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, prayer has been made to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 06.06.2011 and 04.09.2012 and Disagreement Memorandum dated 14.01.2011 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure No's.12, 01 and 10 to the writ petition). Further prayer has been made to issue writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the orders dated 06.06.2011 and 04.09.2012 and Disagreement Memorandum dated 14.01.2011 and allow the petitioner to resume his duties forthwith with full salary.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant General Manager, (Accounts) in Food Corporation of India (here-in-after referred to as 'the Corporation'), Regional Office, Guwahati, Assam on 30.08.2000. Further, he was promoted in the year 2005 on the post of Deputy General Manager (F & A) Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Lucknow. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred in the year 1999 to Headquarter of the Corporation in New Delhi. Work and conduct of the petitioner remained good and excellent during the service period. Neither there was any complaint against the petitioner nor he had to face any departmental enquiry except the present enquiry and punishment order of his dismissal. The disciplinary enquiry was instituted against the petitioner by respondent No.2 for some irregularity for not complying the circular of Government of India dated 28.11.1995 and misinterpreting the circular of Government of India dated 23.02.2001. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and following articles of charges were framed against the petitioner. Charge No.1:- The petitioner while functioning as Assistant General Manager (F & A). Incharge Regional Office, Guwahati did not comply with the direction of the Government of India dated 28.11.1995 and accorded financial concurrence for payment of reimbursement claim of Government of Arunachal Pradesh at a higher rate than admissible on food grain against 420 bills. Charge No.2:- Later the petitioner while functioning in the above corporation has violated the instructions contained in the letter dated 25.06.1999 of the Government of India as also a letter dated 28.10.2002 and recommended for approval and allowed for payment in excess of the admissible claim of Government of Arunchal Pradesh in respect of certain bills of sugar. Charge No.3:- A similar imputation is said in respect of reimbursement bills of Government of Arunchal Pradesh in violation of Government of India instructions contained in letter dated 31.10.1990. Charge No.4:- The petitioner while working as Deputy General Manager (F & A) in Guwahati, wrongly interpreted the Government of India letter dated 23.02.2001 and overlooked the Government of India letter dated 28.11.1995 and took a wrong decision in according sanction for payment of bills by following the instruction contained in letter dated 23.02.2001. Charge No.5:- The petitioner had not complied with the instructions issued vide letter dated 27.06.2003 for released of advance in form of on account payment of Rs. 10.00 crores in phase manner to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and also accorded financial approval for payment without checking Utilization Certificate and consequently release excess amount to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh on account payment system in violation of instructions contained in letter dated 27.06.2003. Charge No.6:- The interest liability had arisen as reported by the Controller and Auditor General which worked out to be Rs. 22.29 crores vide Audit Report dated 17.11.2005. It is alleged that the petitioner had failed to maintain devotion to duty and committed gross misconduct and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation and made himself liable under disciplinary proceedings under Regulation 31(a) (b), 32(A)(5)(9)(30)(38) of Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971.
(3.) Aforesaid articles of charges were served to the petitioner to which he tendered his reply. Enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer who submitted his report dated 09.03.2010, in which finding was recorded that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer regarding charge No.1 and instituted a fresh enquiry regarding the aforesaid charge. The subsequent Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 02.12.2010 in which again finding was recorded by the subsequent Enquiry Officer that the charge levelled against the petitioner is not proved.;