- (1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 16. 6. 2006 (as contained in Annexure-P7) as well as the final order of punishment dated 22. 8. 2006 (as contained in Annexure-P9) whereby and whereunder, the Managing Director, (respondent No. 2) came to the conclusion that the reply of the petitioner was not convincing and therefore, in exercise of his powers conferred under Regulation 56 of the FCI (Staff)Regulations, 1971, imposed the penalty of reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 3 (three) years without cumulative effect.
(2.) THE petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of General manager (General) in the ensuing departmental promotion committee and to take all steps in furtherance thereto on the assumption that no such departmental proceeding had been initiated or order of punishment imposed.
(3.) MR. Surajit Samanta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that for a charge-sheet issued under the provisions of regulation 60 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, the respondents could not have punished him by reduction by 2 (two) stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 3 (three) years without cumulative effect because such a punishment amounts to a major penalty under the provisions of Regulation 54 (v) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations included under Section 5 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred for the sake of brevity and precision as the said Regulations ). He has further submitted that in any event, for an allegation of having made a mere "recommendation", he could not have been proceeded against and punished by the imposition of a major penalty and that too, when a mere "recommendation" can never amount a misconduct under the said regulations.;