- (1.) The petitioner, at the relevant point of time working as a category one officer, is questioning the order of the Chairman & Managing Director, Food Corporation of India dated March 28th, 2006 imposing on him "the penalty of 'censure' and 'token recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs'." It was made under provisions of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971.
(2.) By issuing a charge-sheet dated November 28th, 2005 the chairman and managing director initiated the disciplinary proceedings. It was alleged that during the period from July 15th, 1999 to January 21st, 2002 while functioning as District Manager, FCI, North Lakhimpur the petitioner had failed to work faithfully and honestly in the discharge of his duties, and that such failure resulted in abnormal storage loss and down gradation of rice stock resulting in financial loss to the corporation. He denied the correctness of the allegations by submitting reply dated January 25th, 2006. No inquiry was held, and the chairman and managing director, acting as the disciplinary authority, made the finalorder dated March 28th, 2006 straight imposing the above- noted punishment. The order was served on him at the time of his retirement on March 31st, 2006, the sum of rupees five lakh was recovered from his provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, etc. He was not paid anything on account of retirement benefit. Feeling aggrieved he took out the present writ petition.
(3.) On the strength of the Apex Court decision in Food Corporation of India, Hyderabad & Ors. v. A. Prahalada Rao & Am., (2001)1 SCC 165, and the provisions in regn. 60(1)(b) of the regulations, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the authority made final order in the disciplinary proceedings without holding any regular inquiry in terms of provisions in regn. 58 and without forming and recording his opinion that such an inquiry was not necessary. He says that on this ground in a large number of cases this Court set aside the minor penalty orders made by the authorities of the corporation. This fact is not disputed by Counsel for the corporation. He also concedes that there is nothing to show that the chairman and managing director who made the final order had recorded his opinion in writing, before making the final order, that there was no need to hold a regular inquiry, though the petitioner had denied the correctness of the allegations made in the charge-sheet.;