- (1.) Both these writ petitions concern the action terminating the services of the respective petitioners by the Food Corporation of India for alleged misconduct during their respective services as employees of the Food Corporation of India resulting in huge monetary loss. Before the arguments got under way, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred me to the manner of disposal of yet another case in C.W.P. No. 2603 of 1988 relating to yet another employee Sone Lal. Their contention was that their case must be similarly treated as Sone Lai's case. I had directed the counsel to argue the case on merits as well since there were some important differences that compelled the different result in Sone Lal's case. It would be necessary to spell out the decision of the Supreme Court in Sone Lal's case to stave off the contentions of the petitioners that the said case did not conclude the issue regarding the competency of the officer to pass the order of punishment and it was confined to the particular facts of the case. In Sone Lal's case, the case related to a challenge of order of compulsory retirement by way of punishment for alleged misconduct resulting in deficiency of stocks and causing loss to the Food Corporation of India. The writ petition had been ordered finding that the order of removal was made by a person, who was lower in rank than the appointing authority and therefore the order was vitiated. This order was confirmed in LPA without further going to the merits of the contentions relating to the justification for removal. In a further Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court at the instance of the Food Corporation of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the finding that the Disciplinary Authority that ordered the punishment was lower in rank was erroneous. In that case, the order promoting Sone Lal as Technical Assistant Grade-I by an authority equivalent in rank to the Deputy Zonal Manager was contended to be a person, who was above the rank of Senior Regional Manager and consequently, the order of removal of the employee from service by the Senior Regional Manager was found to be a person lower in rank than the appointing authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order promoting Sone Lai as Technical Assistant Grade-1 had been recommended by the Zonal Promotion Committee and the mere mention of the designation of Zonal Manager, North in the office order of promotion could not lead to the inference that the officer had been promoted by the Zonal Manager. The Court took note of the fact that on the recommendation of the Zonal Promotion Committee headed by the Deputy Zonal Manager did not require any approval from the Zonal Manager. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Zonal Promotion Committee was the final authority for making promotion within Category III and Zonal Manager had nothing to do with regard to the promotions made by the Committee. The Court, therefore, held that the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India was competent to impose the penalty of compulsory requirement. Out of these two cases, in C.W.P. 18432 of 2002, the promotion order had been issued by the Deputy Manager, Administration purporting to act on behalf of the Zonal Manager (North) on 11.04.1978. In C.W.P. No. 14738 of 2005, the promotion order has been issued on 04.05.1972 by the Deputy Manager, Administration for the Zonal Manager.
(2.) In the order of the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 18432 of 2002, it bears out clearly that he was one of the several officers appointed on the same day about which a reference has been made even in the decision of the Supreme Court in FCI v. Sone Lal, referred to above. As per Regulation 56 Appendix II, the Senior Regional Manager was the competent authority to make appointment/promotion to the post of Technical Assistant Grade I. It bears out from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the petitioner-Bhopal Singh was also a party before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 18505 of 2004 and the counsel was actually adopting the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for Sone Lal. The issue framed before the Supreme Court was whether the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India was competent to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent under Regulation 56 of the Food Corporation of India Regulations, 1971. The Supreme Court found fault with the initial observations of the Single Judge and the Division Bench that the files had been put to the Zonal Manager only for the purpose of retention of Technical Assistant Grade I selectees within Punjab in promoted capacity. If the Senior Regional Manager/Regional Manager/Zonal Manager was each competent to impose any of the penalties, namely minor as well as major, the Senior Regional Manager was not only the appointing authority for the post held by the petitioners but also competent to act as a disciplinary authority for the purpose of Regulations 56, 57, 58 and 59 for imposing major penalties. The Supreme Court was accepting the contention made on behalf of the Food Corporation of India that the promotion orders were issued from Regional Office because seniority list of Group/Category II were being maintained on zonal basis in respect of the regions under the North zone and the Senior Regional Manager, who himself was equal in rank to the Deputy Zonal Manager was competent to initiate the proceedings and impose penalty. The findings of the Supreme Court that mere mention of the designation of Zonal Manager (North) could not lead to an inference that promotion had also been made by that officer is binding as far as this Court is concerned in the manner of interpretation of Regulation 56 and how the orders came to be passed. It is not, therefore, possible to reopen the issue on the competency of the Senior Regional Manager to impose the penalty. I will, therefore, reject the contention made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners that the orders were vitiated and the person that passed the order was lower in rank to the person, who had appointed the petitioners.
(3.) When the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the Special Leave Petition and directed a fresh disposal, the Supreme Court was actually remitting the case in C.W.P. No. 18432 of 2002 specifically for consideration on merits. The order passed by the Division Bench had been set aside and it was still not open for the petitioners to urge the very same contentions, which have been concluded by the Supreme Court.;