FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA HYDERABAD Vs. A PRAHALADA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The notice issued by this Court is limited to the interpretation given by the High Court to Regulation 60 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations") which prescribes the procedure for imposing minor penalties. In Writ Petition No.14152 of 1989 filed by respondent No. 1-Assistant Manager (Quality Control) at Kakinada challenging the order imposing penalty of recovery of Rs. 7356/- from his pay by 21 monthly instalments on the ground of dereliction of his duties, which caused loss to the Corporation, learned single Judge held that once the employee denies the charge, it is incumbent upon the authorities to conduct an inquiry by giving an opportunity to him and render findings on the charges, otherwise there is every scope for the disciplinary authority to misuse the power under Regulation 60. The Court, therefore, set aside the order imposing minor penalty as the procedure contemplated for imposing major penalty was not followed. In appeal the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment and order dated 18th November, 1997 confirmed the same by observing - "where the employee disputes that any loss is caused to the Corporation either by his negligence or breach of order, and if so, how much pecuniary loss has been incurred, it is but necessary that an enquiry should be conducted, otherwise it is impossible to arrive at a correct finding with regard to the causing of loss by the employee by his negligence or breach of order and with regard to the quantum of loss." The aforesaid interpretation of Rules given by the High Court is challenged in this appeal.

(3.) For deciding the question involved, we would first refer to the relevant procedure prescribed nder Regulations 54 and 60 which read thus :-