FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. GANAPATH RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein was appointed as Grade-I Assistant in the Food Corporation of India and on 14-5-1975 was in charge of Block No. 8 Food Corporation of India, Sanathnagar. A lorry bearing No. AAT 4883, which had been let in to transport rice from the godown and was loaded with the rice when stopped at the check point, was found to contain 51,600. K.Gs of Hamsa rice in excess of the quantity permitted to be transported. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner, who was in charge of the godown. At the enquiry, the driver, the supervisor and some others initially cited were not examined; Only those present at the check point were examined. However, the respondent was found guilty and his pay was reduced to the minimum in the time scale by an order dated 22-6-1978 The respondent took the matter in appeal and questioned both the conviction and also the punishment imposed on him. By an order dated 16-5-1979 the Zonal Manager (2nd appellant) upheld the punishment and dismissed the appeal. That order was called in question in the writ petition which was allowed by the order under appeal;

(2.) The learned single Judge was of the view that the order of the appellate authority was in flagrant violation of Regulation 72 of the Staff Regulations 1971 inasmuch as it did not give any reasons. In, that view of the matter, the learned single Judge quashed the order of the appellate authority and remanded the matter to the Zonal Manager (appellate authority; for fresh consideration in thelight of the observations made in that judgement. The Food Corporation of India has preferred this appeal inter alia contending that since the Zonal Manager was confirming the order of the disciplinary authority and having regard to Regulation 72, he was not obliged to record reasons and the order cannot be quashed on that ground;

(3.) Mr. Suryanarayana Murty, learned standing counsel for the Food Corporation of India, contends that while the appellate authority is required to consider the several grounds raised by the appellant before him, in the absence of any specific provision in the Regulations to record reasons, the order cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity merely because the appellate authority failed to record any reasons. He relied upon several fulings in which it was held that an affirming order of the appellate authority need not give reasons. The affirmance itself incorporates the reasons recorded by the original authority;