K. Kannan, J. - (1.) The petitioners challenge to the order finding the charge against him as established is on a fundamental point that the documents relied on by him in support of his defence were not taken into reckoning. The further dimension to the same challenge was that in the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority had merely affirmed the finding of the Disciplinary Authority without adverting to the grounds of appeal. The case could be understood on the reproduction of the charge that was led against the petitioner in defence that the petitioner had in relation to such a charge.
(2.) The petitioner was a Technical Assistant Grade I and during the time when he was working at Makhu Centre of Ferozepur District, it was alleged that he failed to protect FCI wheat stocks and allowed them to damage and despatched the same inviting 'destination complaint'. It was the responsibility of a Technical Assistant to ensure that the stocks and property are protected by spraying insecticides etc. and certify them as fit for transport. As a matter of fact and procedure, it was brought out before the Inquiry Officer that the stocks would be prioritized by a specific marking on the stocks before they were exited from the godowns. Against the evidence given in respect of the stocks, which was damaged and received as such at the intended destination, the petitioner relied on the documents D-1 to D-4, of which D-1 was a priority list, D-2 and D-4 were his alleged protests against the loading of segregated bags and D-3 was a letter addressed by him to the Assistant Manager (Quality Control), FSD Makhu given at the time of taking over charge complaining of the poor quality of stocks. These documents had been rejected by the Disciplinary Authority holding that he had obtained these documents through "convenient" employee of the Corporation by "persuading" him to give favourable evidence.
(3.) It is a matter of record that the Inquiry Officers report itself was not put to the petitioner calling for his objections by the Disciplinary Authority when he passed an order affirming the Inquiry Officers report and inflicting the petitioner with penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. In the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner had made a particular reference to the wrong characterization made by the Inquiry Officer about the quality of evidence through the following grounds: "E. Inquiry Officer while giving her findings in her report dated 23.4.88 has arbitrarily disbelieved the additional documents Ex.D.1 (VK) to D.4 (VK), produced through the custodian. IO has observed without any basis, that 'it will be'. It is strange to note this observation since it is for the concerned authority, viz. District Manager or SRM etc. to depute the official from his office to produce documents. Charged official can do nothing like "persuading" a "convenient" employees to produce documents, as documents themselves are never under the control of CO. Moreover, even the employee producing documents is well aware of the fact that production of any false documents can expose the employee to disciplinary proceedings. So none would dare to risk his career in such a way." The Appellate Authority while passing an order has gone at lengths to say that the witnesses spoke to the fact that the grains had not been properly protected by tarpaulins from rain and they had been transported without proper care, which resulted in 'destination complaint'. It must be immediately noticed that the issue was not merely that the stocks were of poor quality but the issue was that how the petitioner contributed to such a state of affairs and whether such proof existed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would strenuously contend that there were two components of charge. One, the petitioner had not properly taken care and failed to maintain absolute integrity and due devotion to duty and the second portion was that he had allowed damaged stocks to be despatched inviting destination complaint. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner had also failed in his duty to protect the stocks, even apart from allowing the stocks to be transported.;