Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. In the affidavit-in-opposition the respondent has categorically denied the allegations made by the petitioner. In the said affidavit-in-opposition it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that while functioning as the Assistant Manager (Accounts) Internal Audit and Physical Verification, Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Calcutta, during 1985 the writ petitioner was directed to take physical verification of stocks at Ghatal Food Storage Depot in July, 1985 along with other two officials.

35. Statement of computation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of Articles of charges which is annexure-2 says that the petitioner has been functioning as Assistant Manager, Accounts (LA & PV) FCI, Calcutta during 1985 and he was asked to take physical verification of stock, Ghatal FCI, Depot in July 1988 along with other 2 officials and the petitioner submitted P.V. report showing 10580 bags of food-grains consisting of 951 M.T. in the FCI godown at Ghatal although all the FCI stock of Ghatal depot were not stored in the said godown and for reasons best known to him; submitted Incorrect P.V. report to shield misdeed of Ratan Chandra Batabyal. In this statement of imputation if was also been stated that the petitioner committed misconduct by contravening Rule 4.36(b) of Conduct Regulation, Section 4 of Office Manual, Vol. 1 of FCI.

42. But in the instant case, the provision was not followed and the enquiry authority did not put any question to the petitioner. Now by non-supply of documents said regulations were not followed and during enquiry also the regulation was not followed. The enquiry report in conclusion observes :-

"After careful examination/scrutiny of the relied/defence documents, deposition of prosecution witnesses, prosecution/defence written briefs any by applying judicious mind, I am of the opinion that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge that foodgrains stock of 951 MTs as on 22.7.85 (OB) of FCI depot at Ghatal was not stored in the said godown. But the charge that Shri Tarakeswar Nandi had failed to conduct physical verification on stock of Ghatal depot as per procedure and also to furnish the correct P.V. report of Ghatal depot has been proved."

43. Now, the charge is that the petitioner submitted P.V. report of stock of FCI Ghatal dated 19.8.85 as per book balance without verifying the physical stock and thereby the suppression of misproduction why the incharge of Ghatal Food Depot in conspiracy Mr. Distributor, S.C. Paul and D. Nandi now in the enquiry report in conclusive finding nowhere there is any mention about collusion with Mr. Distributors or about suppression of the fact of misappropriation by the Inspector-in-charge and the first basic charge that there is no actual physical verification, was not established and the enquiry officer observed that the charge of conduct of physical verification of stock at Ghatal depot not as per procedure and also he failed to furnish the correct P.V. report of Ghatal depot, has been proved, that means the enquiry officer transgressed the charges, found the delinquent employee guilty on the basis of charge which is not at all. a charge in the charge-sheet. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in a decision reported in 1987(1) CLJ 467 (Ananda Chakraborty v. Union of India) observed :-