Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

A learned single Judge of this Court held that the word 'consider' means due application of mind and that the appellate authority has to consider whether the procedure laid down has been complied with and whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record. There being non- compliance with the requirements of the regulations, the learned single Judge set aside the impugned order passed by the Director General.

13. Before parting with the case we may also point out that the respondent in this case alone has been meted out with the imposition of punishment, whereas two other employees who had been charge sheeted along with the respondent and who were working at the Food Corporation of India sub depot, Trichur during the relevant period have been completely exonerated by the disciplinary authority. Though the respondent filed C.M.P.No. 15258 of 19% before the learned single Judge, no finding has been rendered by the learned single Judge on this aspect. Along with the said petition the respondent has produced two documents and explained as to why the said documents (Exts. P11 and P12) were filed belatedly. Ext. P11 is the order issued by the Regional Office of the Food Corporation of India, Trivandrum, No. S &S/34 (6) 86-87/TCR dated January 4,1988 whereby sanction had been accorded to write on 2,68,671.89 MT of Indian rice in Trichur Sub Depot by way of transit loss, for the month of June, 1986. It was also certified in that order that the inland transit/storage losses incurred by the Trichur sub depot of Trichur District on Indian rice for the month of June 1986 worked out to 2.76 percentage on MT. 3398,394.284 and were considered reasonable; that the said losses were not due to theft, pilferage, negligence, etc. and did not reveal any defect in procedure; and that no vigilance case was pending/contemplated. We have perused the said order. It is very clear from the order that the transit/ storage losses in the sub depots I and II, Trichur, which were made the basis of the charge against the respondent, had been, written off, having been found not due to theft, pilferage, negligence, etc. and not having revealed any defect in procedure; Notwithstanding these findings of the Senior Regional Manager as evidenced by Ext. P11, as also the finding of the enquiry officer that the charge levelled against the respondent has not been conclusively proved, the respondent has been penalised towards the fag end of his career withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Another employee who had been charge sheeted along with the respondent, who was working in the Food Corporation of India, District Office, Trichur (Shri T.S. Gopalakrishnan, Ex-Assistant Grade ID) was completely exonerated of the charge levelled against him by the Senior Regional Manager by Ext.P12 order No. VIG. 30(1)(91). It is stated that Gopalakrishnan was the officer in charge of one of the two sub depots and it was he who was actually working on the spot and primarily responsible for the stock,etc. It is contended that if an official who was on the spot and who was primarily responsible for the loss, etc. could be absolved of the charges levelled against him, it is harsh to proceed against an officer who was not actually working on the spot, but only at a distant place and who was having various other items of work, on the mere allegation of supervisory failure. When the learned counsel for the appellant was confronted with Exts.P11 and P12, learned counsel submitted that he has no knowledge about the same even though the said two documents were filed even during the pendency of the Original Petition before the learned single Judge. It is settled law by decisions of this Court and also of the Supreme Court that when two persons are responsible, one alone cannot be made a scapegoat. A reading of Exts. P11 and P12 clearly shows that the Senior Regional Manager has let off another officer similarly placed like the respondent, viz, Sri T.S.Gopalakrishnan; at the same time, the respondent has been inflicted a major punishment. This itself is sufficient to show that the order impugned in this case offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India and has got to be set aside.