M.H.S. Ansari, J. - (1.) Petitioner is Assistant Manager (Depot). He was served with a memorandum dated 7th November, 1998 by the Senior Regional Manager. Therein it was stated that rake containing 35 wagons were placed at Burdwan on 12.6.98 for unloading and thereafter it was stated as under : "WHEREAS Shri Sanat Kumar Biswas, Asstt. Manager (Depot) informed Dist. Manager, FCI, Burdwan that there was no sufficient space to accommodate the said rake instead of making all out effort to received the same in time to avoid accrual of demurrage charged. WHEREAS the rake was detained from 12.6.98 to 16.6.98 and on 16/17.6.98 unloaded of wagons started which was completed on 18.6.98 after issuance of only 447 MT of existing stock in the intervening period which proves existence of adequate storage space in the godown on 12.6.98 to accommodate the rake load. WHEREAS Sri Sanat Kumar Biswas failed to protect the interest of F.C.I. by causing demurrage charge to the tune of Rs. 3,92,276/- by avoidable detention of rake from 16.6.98 to 16.6.98. WHEREAS Sri Biswas thus misguided his superior officer by stating that there was no space in the godown." Petitioner submitted his reply wherein it was, inter alia, mentioned: "The total stock of 35 wagons @ 558 Qtl. Per wagon is equal to 2058 M.T. i.e. space required to accommodate 35 wagons is 2058 M.T. JUDGEMENT_75_LAWS(CAL)4_2002.html
(2.) In his representation petitioner state that the space position was "acute and the demurrage charges for non- allowing/non-booking of staff/labour on Second Saturday & Sunday and non-allowing of unloading on 15.6.98 and 16.6.98 by D.M. F.C.I., Burdwan in anticipation of re-booking the rake. The order for unloading was given on 17/6/98 as will be evident from the order given on the face of the letter of Shri S. Chatterjee, an assistant while he was at the Dist. Office, Burdwan."
(3.) Thereafter the Senior Regional Manager, disciplinary authority, issued another memorandum dated 15th December, 1999 (Annexure 'G') forwarding the imputation of misconduct and charge framed against the petitioner and thereby calling upon the petitioner to submit his statement of defence within the time specified therein. Such defence statement was submitted by the petitioner. The plea of the petitioner was one by denying the charge framed against him.;