Ansari, J. - (1.) The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us being aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition being W.P. No. 3516 (W) of 2001 by order dated June 26, 2001.
(2.) Having heard Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury assisted by Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, learned Counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner and Mr. Kamal Kr. Chatterjee on behalf of the respondent in the appeal, we are of the view that the only question arising for consideration in the instant appeal is as to whether after issuing the charge-sheet under Regulation 58 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971 for imposition of major penalty, for which the rule envisages holding of a regular departmental enquiry, the authority can, after examining the reply to the charge-sheet inflict a minor punishment without holding a regular departmental enquiry.
(3.) Learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India, Hyderabad & Ors. v. A. Prahalada Rao & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 51 held that "issuance of a charge-sheet under Regulation 58 and thereafter resorting to Regulation 60 per se cannot be said to be an illegality or irregularity." It was further held that the respondent cannot be restrained from recovering the amount in question from the post retiral benefits of the petitioner-appellant.;