Delhi High Court
Tej Singh vs Food Corporation Of India, And Other on 6 January, 2023
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Released on: 06.01.2023
+ W.P.(C) 12941/2009
TEJ SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manoranjan Mishra,
Advocate.
(M): 9811564139
Email:
[email protected]
versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, AND
OTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Om Prakash with
Mr. Vicky Kumar and
Ms. Shivangini Sharma,
Advocates for respondent/FCI.
(M): 9810794902
Email:
[email protected]
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
[Physical Hearing/ Hybrid Hearing]
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL):
1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order of
penalty dated 18.01.2003 passed by the Senior Regional Manager, the
disciplinary authority, thereby imposing penalty of censure on the
petitioner and recovery of Rs.64,756/- from the petitioner. The
petitioner has also sought quashing of the order dated 10.08.2004
passed by the Zonal Manager (North), the Appellate Authority,
thereby rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner has also
challenged the order dated 02.03.2009 passed by the Reviewing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 1 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
Authority.
2. Petitioner is an employee of the respondent, Food Corporation
of India. He was appointed as Assistant Grade (AG) III (Depot) with
the respondent in the year 1976 and promoted to the post of AG II
(Depot) in the year 1988.
3. The petitioner was posted as AG II (D) at Kasganj Depot,
pursuant to order dated 07.01.1988. While the petitioner was posted
at Kasganj Depot on 05.10.1994, the charge of rice stocks was handed
over to the petitioner on peripheral counting of bags, on book balance
without any physical weighment from S.M. Haider, AG I (D), as per
the case put forward by petitioner. The petitioner at that time was still
working as AG-II (D).
4. When the petitioner was still working as AG-II (D) at Food
Storage Depot, Kasganj, a memorandum dated 09.01.2002 along with
statement of imputation of misconduct and misbehaviour was issued
by respondent No. 3, Senior Regional Manager against the petitioner.
As per the memorandum dated 09.01.2002, the allegation against the
petitioner was that the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity
and devotion to duty while posted and functioning at Kasganj Depot
during the period 1997-98 and 1998-99. The statement of imputation
of misconduct against the petitioner as given along with
memorandum dated 09.01.2002 is reproduced as below:
"
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE
1/150, VIVEK KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR
LUCKNOW
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 2 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
No. Vig.4(1326)/RO.LKO/ALG/STL/2001/2184
Dt: 9.1.02
MEMORANDUM
________________
Shri. Tej Singh AG.II(D)(PP) is hereby informed
that it is proposed to take action against him under Rule 16
of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965/ Regulation 60 of Food
Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971. A statement
of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour on which
action is proposed to be taken as mentioned above is
enclosed.
Shri. Tej Singh AG.II(D) (PP) is hereby given an
opportunity to make such representation as he may wish to
make against the proposal. If he wishes to inspect records
he may do so within 03 days of receipt of this
memorandum and omit his reply within 07 days after that.
If Shri. Tej Singh AG.II (D) (PP) fails to submit his
representation within 10 days of the receipt of this
memorandum, it will be presumed that he has no
representation to make and orders will be liable to be
passed against Shri. Tej Singh AG.II (D) (PP) ex parte.
Senior Regional Manager
Disciplinary Authority
To
Shri Tej Singh, AG.II (D) (through DM FCI, Aligarh)
Copy to: - X X X
Senior Regional Manager
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 3 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT
OR MISBEHAVIOUR ON THE BASIS OF WHICH
ACTION IS PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN AGAINST
Shri.Tej Singh AG.II(D)/PP
Shri Tej Singh AG.II/PP while posted and
functioning as such at FSD Kashganj during the period 97-
98, 98-99 failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to
duty and committed following irregularity:-
Shri. Tej Singh AG.II/PP was entrusted with the
work of storage and maintenance of foodgrains. The
following cases of storage loss of wheat/ rice has been
reported in respect of FSD Kashganj for the month of
11/97 and 12/97. The losses are found to be unrealistic and
unjustified as per the enclosed statement:
Statement of storage loss submitted in respect of
FSD Kashganj for the period indicated above shows
storage loss of 4.56% to 4.86% during the storage period
of 56 to 83 months. The stocks were received in „B‟
category and issued in „B‟ category. The mode of
weighment of stocks at the time of despatch was 100% and
at the of receipt. 10%
Said Shri Tej Singh AG.II/PP accepted stocks with
higher percentage of moisture in connivance with depot
staff and also recorded incorrect moisture at the time of
issue/ despatch of stocks. Due to improper preservation
and incorrect recording of moisture by Shri Tej Singh AG
II/PP FCI suffered a loss as indicated in the enclosed
statement.
It is, thus, established from above that said Sri Tej
Singh AG II (D)/PP intentionally accepted rice/ wheat
stocks with higher moisture content and at the time of
despatches recorded incorrect moisture to adjust the
storage losses in connivance with Depot staff and for this
purpose made manipulation in records to hide his
misdeeds.
Shri Tej Singh AG.II(D)/PP is, therefore, found
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 4 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
equally responsible for abnormal storage losses leading to
huge loss to the Corporation, 1151-54 valuing
Rs.6,67,054-75.
Shri Tej Singh AG.II(D)/PP thus contravened
Regulation, 31 & 32A of Food Corporation of India (Staff)
Regulations, 1971.
(B.K. Agarwal)
Sr. Regional Manager
Disciplinary Authority"
5. Petitioner denied the allegations made against him in the
statement of imputation of misconduct as baseless and unjustified. The
petitioner filed his reply/ representation to the memorandum before
the respondent No.3/ the disciplinary authority. However, the
disciplinary authority by its order dated 18.01.2003 imposed the
penalty of censure and recovery of Rs.64,756/- upon the petitioner.
The said amount of Rs. 64,756/- as directed to be recovered from the
petitioner was on the basis that the respondent herein had suffered loss
of Rs. 1,29,511/- and the petitioner was imposed 50% of the said loss
amounting to Rs. 64,756/-.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 18.01.2003 passed by
the Disciplinary Authority, petitioner filed an appeal before the
Appellate Authority, respondent No. 2 herein.
7. It may be mentioned herein that during the pendency of the
appeal before the Appellate Authority, the Disciplinary Authority
issued another memorandum dated 13.04.2004 along with statement
of imputation of misconduct with the same allegation of storage loss
during the same period, but for different stocks of rice. As regards the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 5 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
second charge-sheet dated 13.04.2004, the petitioner herein was
exonerated and was not found guilty, considering the longer storage
period of stocks, by way of order dated 08.10.2004 passed by the
Disciplinary Authority.
8. By order dated 10.08.2004, the Appellate Authority rejected the
appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner herein had not
made any new contention in his appeal and had reiterated the same
pleas that had already been taken into consideration by the
Disciplinary Authority.
9. The petitioner, thereafter, filed writ petition being W.P.(C)
No.18192/2004 challenging the order of penalty and stay of recovery
of the amount. The said petition was dismissed vide judgment dated
01.07.2008 on the ground that the petitioner failed to advance any
plausible reason for not seeking the remedy of review, as provided
under Regulation 74 of FCI (Staff) Regulation. The petitioner was
granted liberty to seek review of the order of the Appellate Authority,
with further liberty to seek his legal remedies in case he was still
aggrieved with the outcome of the order passed by the Reviewing
Authority.
10. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a review petition before the
Reviewing Authority, respondent No.5. By order dated 02.03.2009,
the Reviewing Authority rejected the review petition of the petitioner.
Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.
11. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the order of
penalty passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the orders
passed by the appellate and the reviewing Authority are illegal on the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 6 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
face of it, as the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged
storage loss only because he was custodian of stocks at the time of
disposal of the stocks of rice, after 5-7 years of its receipt. It is
submitted that the petitioner neither accepted the stock nor recorded
the moisture at the time of disposal of the stocks. The alleged stocks
were stored from different dates in the year 1991-92 and disposed of
during the years 1997-99. It is further submitted that the stocks of rice
were accepted in the year 1991-92, whereas the charge was handed
over to the petitioner only on 05.10.1994 on the book balance, without
any physical verification. Further, the moisture percentage was being
recorded by the then Technical Assistant and that recording of
moisture percentage was not the job of the petitioner, as the petitioner
was AG II (D) at that time.
12. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that during the
storage period, the stocks in question were subjected to physical
verification and no discrepancy was pointed out by any physical
verification team. It is further submitted that the Disciplinary
Authority has violated the specific mandatory provisions of
Regulation 60(d) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations,
1971 („the Regulations‟) by not giving finding on each imputation of
misconduct. This fact of not following the procedure laid down in the
Regulations was also not considered by the Appellate Authority in
terms of Regulation 72 (a).
13. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though
names of several persons were mentioned in the statement showing
details of storage loss cases, however, action has been taken only
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 7 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
against the petitioner as he was holding a lower post than others. It is
further contended that when the alleged total loss is Rs.1,29,511/- and
number of persons were involved as per the statement of imputation of
misconduct, the penalty of censure and recovery of 64,756, i.e., 50%
of the total alleged loss imposed upon the petitioner, is highly
disproportionate.
14. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents
that the impugned orders, as passed by the respondent, have been
passed in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the
petitioner and complying with all the norms of justice and fair play. It
is submitted that the petitioner was the custodian of the stock of rice
and was responsible for any unjustified loss due to pilferage from the
storage godown during the period of his posting in the depot. It is
submitted on behalf of the respondent that average abnormal storage
losses to the tune of 4.86% was observed in the rice stocks of the
month of November 1997, September 1998, November 1998,
December 1998 and January 1999, at the Kasganj Depot. The
petitioner being the AG II(D), was the custodian of stocks at the
relevant time for a considerable period of stay, i.e., from May 1994 to
January 1999. He was, thus, found responsible for such heavy loss to
the corporation in the form of storage loss along with other officials
namely Late Sh. Shyam Lal, Ex. AG II (D) and Sh. S.M. Haider, AG-
I(D). The disciplinary authority after considering the matter, issued
chargesheet to the petitioner and others, under minor penalty, i.e.,
under Regulation 60 of the Regulations. The disciplinary authority
after considering natural losses occurred during storage, i.e., shortage
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 8 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
of weight due to dryness of moisture, period of storage as per formula
evaluated and the representation of the petitioner, imposed the penalty
of censure and recovery of Rs.64,756/- upon the petitioner.
15. Ld. Counsel for the respondent further submits that the
petitioner himself had not insisted for checking weight of stocks to
find out the position/trend of storage losses at the time of taking over
physical charge of stocks from Sh. S.M. Haider, AG I-(D). Petitioner
failed to conduct himself in the manner it was required in terms of
Chapter 16 and particularly point no. 16.6 of the storage manual of
FCI. Petitioner was duty bound to take charge of the stocks after
satisfying himself of the available stocks.
16. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent that as per
para No. 2.1.8 of Chapter II of Depot Staff Job Description, the
petitioner was required to control storage loss and transit loss, which
was found on higher side and that the petitioner has rightly been held
responsible for the loss by the competent authority. It is submitted that
the petitioner failed to control the storage loss, which is with reference
to loss of moisture that was on the higher side as per the norms which
only provide 0.7% against 1% moisture loss. However in the present
case the storage loss was to the tune of 4.86%.
17. It is further submitted that the petitioner was exonerated vide
order dated 08.10.2004 in respect of the memorandum dated
13.04.2004 for different stocks of rice in the month of March 1998,
taking lenient view because lesser quantity of unjustified losses was
found by the disciplinary authority. It is further submitted on behalf of
the respondent that the penalty of recovery of Rs.64,756/- is half of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 9 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
the actual unjustified losses suffered by the Corporation after giving
advantage of censure for the quantity and the amount of justified
losses. The petitioner has been penalised only for 50% of the total
unjustified loss, which should not be considered as highly
disproportionate. Petitioner was the custodian of the stocks and he
failed to check/control storage losses, as such he has been penalised
for his failure. Other officials were not the custodian of the stocks.
Thus, the position and gravity of charge of petitioner is serious and
different from other officials.
18. It is further submitted that recovery of loss was also effected
from Mr. S.M. Haider, AG I (D) and from late Mr. Shyam Lal, Ex.
AG-II (D) also. There was no down-gradation in the stocks, as such
the quality control staff was not responsible for storage loss. Every
case has different merits and the disciplinary authority decided the
case after considering all the factors independently in every case,
hence, the recovery in one case cannot be compared with the other.
19. I have heard both the parties and have perused the record.
20. Scrutiny of the documents on record discloses that the stocks in
question, were neither accepted by the petitioner nor were accepted
under his supervision. The stocks in question were accepted in the
year 1991-1992, whereas the charge was handed over to the petitioner
only on 05.10.1994 on the book balance, without any physical
verification. The petitioner has filed on record the details of the
receipt/issue and name of persons who received/issued the stock of
rice in question. The table as filed along with the present petition is
reproduced hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 10 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 11 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 12 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
21. The documents on record also show that during the storage
period, the stocks in question were subjected to physical verification
and no discrepancy was pointed out by any physical verification team.
22. The petitioner in his capacity as AG II (D) was only the
custodian of stocks at the time of liquidation of the stocks. There is no
document on record to suggest that the petitioner had any role to play
with regard to storage loss. As seen from the documents, the moisture
percentage was being recorded by the then Technical Assistant.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 13 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
Recording the moisture content was not within the job description of
the petitioner, as the petitioner was AG II (D) at that time.
23. It is to be noted that rice is a perishable commodity and it
cannot be stored for an indefinite period. As pointed out by ld.
Counsel for petitioner, the quality of rice deteriorates over time on
account of change in climatic condition in as much as the temperature
goes high to the extent of 47 degree Celsius with very low humidity
and such variation in temperature and humidity results in deterioration
of stock which ultimately results in storage loss on high side.
24. There is no denying the fact that in the present case, rice stocks
were stored for a long period, i.e., about 5-7 years. Preservation of the
stocks are the duty of the Technical Staff (quality control), and such
responsibility cannot be saddled in the manner as done in the present
case, upon the petitioner, as the petitioner was only the custodian of
the stocks and not directly concerned with the quality control. During
the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has handed over
the list of duties of the Depot staff of the Food Corporation of India,
as issued by the Head Quarter of the Food Corporation of India, 15-
20, Barakhamba lane, New Delhi-110001. The said chart of duties
gives in detail the routine work of the Depot staff, which does not
include any duty with respect to maintenance or checking of the
moisture content of the stored grains. It goes without saying that
maintenance or checking of the moisture content of the stored grains
involves expertise in the said field and would be duty of experts from
the technical department having knowledge and know-how in the said
field. Thus, staff having general duties cannot be held responsible for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 14 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
specialized aspect of storage of grains involving maintenance or
checking of moisture content.
25. Another important point to be noted is that recommendations
were made through monthly inspection report by the Assistant
Manager (Quality Control) and inspection notes of the Deputy
Manager (Quality Control) for early disposal of the stocks of rice
since 1994-1995. However, no action was taken by the respondents in
this regard. The stocks were disposed of only in the year 1997-1998
after about 5 to 7 years. The squad inspection report dated 02.03.1995
is relevant in this regard, which is reproduced for ready reference
herein below:
"SQUAD INSPECTION REPORT
1. Name and designation of Shri. R.K. Sharma, Dy.
Inspection officer Manager (QC)FCI,
Bulandshahr
2. Date of inspection 2.3.95
3. Depot inspected F.S.D. Kasganj
4. (a) Storage capacity of the Covered Cap Nature Total
the Depot. Owned Hired thereof
9160 - 9160MT
4.(b) Commodity wise/Category wise
Classifications stocks held
in the depot as per latest
inspection by the local QC staff
COMMODITY C F H TOTAL A B C D TOTAL
Wheat - - - Nil - - - - Nil
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 15 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
Rice common Raw
Boiled 7809 - - 7809 - 7809 - - 7809
Fine Rice Raw
Boiled 31 - - 31 - 31 - - 31
X x x x x x
7840 7840 7840 7840
5. Strength of QC staff and adequacy there of as per norms.
Sanctioned Inposition
ASSTT. MANAGER (QC) -
TECH.ASSTT.GR.I -
TECH. ASSTT. GR.II. 1
TECH.ASSTT.GR.III -
DUSTING OPERATORS 3+1 Picker
______________________________
6. Condition of godown with to check birds entrance in specific
reference to repairs the she windows, ventilator if any to be
carried out :- should be repaired immediately.
20. Date of last, inspection of this depot and the general
improvement noticed on QC aspects.
21. MISCELLANEOUS
The visiting officer is required to mention here the list of
instructions given by him in the depots inspection for
compliance.
(1) Brushing on stacks may be carried out regularly.
(2) Looze Rice was lying in Tin B shed in mixing position of birds
excreta. lt should be cleaned & filled in bags immediately.
(3) The godowns should be brushed & cleaned and particular in
tin sheds. Cob-webs should be removed from stack & wall
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 16 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
(4) In Rice stocks of the year 91-92 encrustration &
discolourisation has started. It should be liquidated at an early
date. (emphasis provided)
(5) The cleaning of sheds is not being done since two months for
want of casual labours. AM(D) informed that H.T.C is not
supplying the casual labours. The casual labours should engaged
either from the risk & cost or from contingency but cleaning
should not be suffered at any cost
(6) The huge quantity of loose grain was noticed beneath the
crates in tin shed. It should be collected & cleaned.
DEPUTY MANAGER (QC)
F.C.I, BULANDSHAHR
DISTRIBUTION
1. The Senior Regional Manager, FCI, R.O, Lucknow.
2. The Zonal Manager (N) FCI, Z.O, New Delhi
3. The Manager (QC) FCI. Head Office, New Delhi."
26. It is also pertinent to note here as pointed at by Ld counsel for
petitioner, that all the works in the food storage depot are done under
the supervision of Assistant Manager (D) and all works regarding
preservation, recording of moisture and maintenance of quality of
stocks are done by the technical staff under the supervision of
Assistant Manager (Quality Control). All the works with regard to
quality control, i.e., recording of moisture, ascertaining the quality of
stocks and preservation are done by technical assistants under the
supervision of Assistant Manager (Quality Control). Hence, it is clear
that petitioner being only the custodian of the stocks and discharging
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 17 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
general duties with respect thereto, cannot be held responsible for the
allegations made in the statement of imputation of misconduct.
27. Another aspect which needs consideration is the fact that the
order dated 10.08.2004 issued by the Disciplinary Authority does not
give specific findings with respect to each imputation against the
petitioner herein. This is against the Regulations of the respondent
Food Corporation of India, wherein in Regulation 60(d), it has been
stipulated that recording of finding on each imputation of misconduct
or misbehaviour is mandatory before imposing any of the penalties
(minor) specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Regulation 54. The relevant
Regulation 60(d) of the Regulations is reproduced as below:-
"FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (STAFF)
REGULATION, 1971
60. Procedure for imposing minor penalties:
(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-Regulation 59, no
order imposing on an employee any of the penalties
specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Regulation 54 shall be
made except after:
(a) .........
(b) .........
(c) ..........
(d) recording a finding on each imputation of
misconduct or misbehaviour
............"
28. Similarly, the Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeal
did not consider the import of Regulation 72(a), as per which the
Appellate Authority is enjoined to consider whether the procedure laid
down in the Regulations has been complied with or not. Thus, the
Appellate Authority had to consider the fact that the Disciplinary
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 18 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
Authority has failed to return a finding on each of the imputations as
levied against the petitioner herein.
29. Another fact which is germane to the adjudication in the present
proceedings is that another memorandum dated 13.04.2004 was issued
against the petitioner herein with same allegation of storage loss
during the same period, but for different stock of rice. The storage loss
in the subsequent memorandum dated 13.04.2004 was shown to the
extent of 4.98%. The memorandum dated 13.04.2004 containing the
statement of imputation of misconduct against the petitioner herein is
reproduced as below:-
" STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT
OR MISBEHAVIOUR ON THE BASIS OF WHICH
ACTION IS PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN AGAINST
Shri. Tej Singh AG. II (D)/PP
Shri. Tej Singh Asst. Grade-II (Depot) while posted
and functioning as such at FSD Kashganj, Etah during the
period February 96 to March 98. failed to maintain
absolute intergrity and devotion to duty and committed
following irregularities:-
Shri. Tej Singh Asst. Grade-II (Depot) was
entrusted with the work of storage and maintenance of
foodgrains in the following cases of storage loss of Rice
has been reported in respect of FSD Kashganj for the
month indicated below:
Commo Stock Storage Percen Moisture at Period of Value
Dity No. Loss tage the time of Storage of loses
@Rs.
572/-
______
Receipt Issue
Rice A/1 81.51.000 4.97% 14.00% 12.00% 63
PB months
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 19 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
Common
" A/2 81.03.000 4.93% 15.00% 12.30% 51
months
" A/3b 22.50.000 4.00% 14.20% 12.00% 60
months
" A/5 81.02.000 4.94% 14.70% 12.10% 74
months
" B/4 81.75.000 4.98% 14.80% 12.20% 75
____________________ _____ ____
Total: 347.81.000 1,98,947.30
Shri. Tej Singh AG. II (D) was working at Unit I/C is
responsible for aforesaid losses.
The stocks were received in his godown on 100%
weighment in „B‟ category and liquidated through
weighbridge on 100%. Reasons for storage loss mentioned
in the storage loss statement has been considered even
then the losses are on higher side for which Shri. Tej Singh
Asst. Grade-II (Depot) is responsible.
It is, thus, established from above the said Shri. Tej
Singh AG. II (D) in connivance with other Depot staff
made manipulation in records to justify the shortages and
shown it as storage loss to hide his misconduct.
Shri. Tej Singh Asst. Grade II (Depot) thus
contravened Regulation, 31 & 32-A of Food Corporation
of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971.
(B.K. Agarwal)
Sr. Regional Manager
Disciplinary Authority"
30. The Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 08.10.2004
exonerated the petitioner from the charges as levied by way of
memorandum dated 13.04.2004, on the ground of considering longer
storage period of stock. Copy of order dated 08.10.2004 issued by the
Disciplinary Authority exonerating the petitioner herein qua the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 20 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116
memorandum dated 13.04.2004 is reproduced as below:-
" Food Corporation of India
5-6, Habibullah Estate, Hazratganj, Lucknow- 226001
No. Vig. 4(1655)/RO. LKO/STL/ALG/2003/2812
ORDER
Whereas disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Shri Tej Singh, AG.II (Depot) now AG.I (Depot) under Regulation, 60 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 vide memorandum number Vig. 4(1655)/RO.
LKO/STL/ALG/2003 dated 13.04.2004 in the matterof storage loss of Rico 03/98 at FSD Koshi-kalan under Distt. Manager Aligarh.
And whereas Shri Tej Singh, AG.II (D) now AG.I (D) was given an opportunity to represent against the charges framed against him vide above mentioned memorandum dated 13.04.2004.
And whereas said Shri Tej Singh, AG.II(D) now AG. I (D) has submitted representation dated 15.05.2004 in his defence.
And whereas the undersigned after careful dispassionate examination of the chargesheet, representation and other related documents and circumstances associated with the case finally came to the conclusion that he is not guilty to the charges levelled against him. Considering longer storage period of stock.
Now, therefore, I, B.K. Agarwal, IAS. Senior Regional Manager being Disciplinary Authority in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation, 56 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 hereby "EXONERATE" said Shri Tej Singh, AGII now AGI(D) from the alleged charges.
(B.K. AGARWAL) SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY "
31. It is pertinent to mention here that in the first memorandum Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 21 of 27 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:09.01.2023 16:05:58 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116 dated 09.01.2002, qua which the present petition has been filed, the storage loss was indicated by the respondent as 4.50% to 4.81% and the storage period was 56 to 83 months. In the second memorandum dated 13.04.2004, in which the petitioner was exonerated, the storage loss as indicated by the respondent was 4.00% to 4.98% and the storage period was 51-75 months. However, the same Disciplinary Authority exonerated the petitioner qua the second memorandum dated 13.04.2004, while holding the petitioner guilty with respect to first memorandum dated 09.01.2002, which is subject matter of the present writ petition. When the petitioner has been exonerated of similar charges on the ground of longer storage period with similar allegation of storage loss, holding the petitioner guilty in the present case shows non-application of mind and arbitrariness on the part of the respondent.
32. It is also relevant to take note of the subsequent circular dated 12.02.2008 issued by the respondent, wherein it has been provided in clear terms that the quality and quantity losses of food grains during storage are obvious and unavoidable due to natural factors beyond the control of employees. Thus, it has been stipulated by way of the said circular that no recovery in respect of storage and transit losses should be effected without the theft/pilferage and malafide being proved. The circular dated 12.02.2008 issued by the respondent reads as under:-
" FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
HEADQUARTERS:NEWDELHI
16-10 BARAKHAMBALANE.NEWDELHI-110001
No.STK/35(3)/07/54 Date: 12th February, 2008
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 22 of 27
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:09.01.2023
16:05:58
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116 Executive Director(Zone) All General Manager(Region) Food Corporation of India.ZO Food Corporation of India Noida/Chennai/Mumbai Regional office.
Kolkata/Guwahati Subject: Adherance of procedural formalities in storage & Transit Loss Cases-Fixation of responsibility- Regarding.
Reference: Hqr's Circular No.STK/23/l(7)/(NORMS/02)dated 7.06.2002 Sir, Your attention is invited to Hqrs instructions issued vide Circular referred above wherein it was inter-alia emphasized that the existing procedure for fixing accountability for storage and transit mentioned in Hqrs' Circulars dated 6.11.1998 & 24.12.1999 would continue to be followed.
Of late, the Staff Bodies have been expressing resentment over the manner in which the responsibility is fixed on the employees by issuing chargesheets and making recoveries from them for abnormal/unjustified S & T losses arbitrarily and without following the procedural formalities as required under the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971,The Unions have also been emphasizing that no employee be made responsible for such foodgrains losses unless his/her involvement in theft and misappropriation is proved beyond doubt on the plea that the quality and quantity losses of foodgrains during storage are obvious and unavoidable due to natural factors beyond the control of employees. Also there is no point to make employees responsible for transit losses and to ask them to visit at the destination to verify the shortages while they have already got the consignment verified from the representatives of insurance company and obtained the certificate to this effect.
The whole matter was disclosed by FCI Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 23 of 27 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:09.01.2023 16:05:58 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116 Management with the BKNK Sangh and FCIES Union in a joint meeting at FCI Hqrs on 28.12.2007,wherein after detailed deliberations, it has been decided that henceforth it would be ensured by all concerned authorities that no recovery in respect of storage and transit losses should be effected without the theft/pilferage and malafide being proved. All the competent authorities are also advised that they should pass speaking orders establishing malafide etc. On the part of each employee while imposing penalties/making recoveries from the field staff consequent upon investigation of abnormal S &T loss cases. These instructions may be strictly followed.
The instructions issued vide Hqrs' Circular letter of even No. dated 31.01.2008/1.2.2008 are hereby withdrawn. This issues with the approval of CMD.
Yours faithfully (VPC Menon) General Manager (Stocks) For ED(Stocks)"
33. The aforesaid circular dated 12.02.2008, though has been issued subsequently, clearly reflects the intent of the respondent in holding the employees responsible in respect of storage and transit losses only if their involvement in theft and misappropriation is proved beyond doubt. There is no such allegation of theft or misappropriation against the petitioner in the present case. This factor is also of great significance for adjudication of the present matter. Even otherwise, the petitioner having no technical knowledge or experience on quality control, the recording of moisture content by the petitioner at any point of time, does not arise.
34. Another aspect that needs consideration is that the other Co-
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 24 of 27 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:09.01.2023 16:05:58Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116 delinquents i.e. Mr. Haider, AG (I), Depot and late Sh. Shyam Lal, Ex. AG(I), Depot, were imposed with much less recovery than the petitioner herein. The respondent has filed order dated 18.01.2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority against Mr. S.M. Haider, AG (I), Depot along with their counter affidavit, which shows that along with penalty of censure, recovery of Rs. 12,235/- was directed against the said official. Recovery of Rs. 12,235/- from a higher official, in comparison to the recovery of Rs. 64,756/- against the petitioner who was junior to the said Mr. S.M. Haider, again shows arbitrariness and whimsicality on the part of the respondent.
35. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others., 2013 SCC OnLine SC 149 has held that parity among co-delinquents has to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Thus, Supreme Court held as follows:-
"9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences."
36. The findings in the present case are clearly perverse, in view of the detailed discussion herein above. It is now well settled that courts Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 25 of 27 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:09.01.2023 16:05:58 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116 will interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, malafide or based on extraneous considerations or if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated. In the present matter, the findings by the Disciplinary Authorities are found to be perverse, arbitrary, unreasonable as well as unjustified.
37. Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank & Others Vs Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308, while summarising the principles of judicial review of findings by the Disciplinary Authority, has held as follows:
"7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions at the Bar. It is true that a writ court is very slow in interfering with the findings of facts recorded by a departmental authority on the basis of evidence available on record. But it is equally true that in a case where the disciplinary authority records a finding that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which no reasonable person could have arrived at, the writ court would be justified if not duty-bound to examine the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases. The writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present case. Non-application of mind by the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority, non- recording of reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts are justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. The High Court has, in the case at hand, found all these infirmities in the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The respondent's case that the enquiry was conducted without giving a fair and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 26 of 27 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:09.01.2023 16:05:58 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000116 reasonable opportunity for leading evidence in defence has not been effectively rebutted by the appellant. More importantly the disciplinary authority does not appear to have properly appreciated the evidence nor recorded reasons in support of his conclusion. To add insult to injury the appellate authority instead of recording its own reasons and independently appreciating the material on record, simply reproduced the findings of the disciplinary authority. All told, the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have faltered in the discharge of their duties resulting in miscarriage of justice. The High Court was in that view right in interfering with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority."
38. Considering the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 18.01.2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority; order dated 10.08.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority and order dated 02.03.2009 passed by the Reviewing Authority are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed.
39. In view thereof, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are hereby quashed.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J DECEMBER 6, 2022 PB/AU/c Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN W.P.(C) 12941/2009 Page 27 of 27 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:09.01.2023 16:05:58