Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8) The Review Committee conducts periodical review of the employees of FCI under Regulation 22(2) of the FCI Staff Regulation. The matter relating to the petitioner was reviewed by the Review Committee by following the guidelines contained under the said Regulation 22(2) of FCI Staff Regulation, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT for short) OM dated 28.08.2020 and paragraph-10 of the FCI Circular dated 09.07.2021 and thereupon the Review Committee made its recommendation to the appropriate authority after considering the entire service record of the petitioner, including memos, show-cause notices, charge-sheets, penalties, Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR's for short) grading, remarks about integrity and general reputation of the petitioner in the organization. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.06.2021 was issued.
15) It was submitted that it was the pleaded case of the petitioner that as per circular dated 09.07.2022, the performance of the petitioner was reviewed by the Review Committee in the year 2021, on attaining the age of 50 years on 29.01.2021, but then the Review Committee did not recommend to compulsorily retire the petitioner. Thus, the case of the petitioner having been considered by the Review Committee, could not have been taken-up in the year 2023, when there was no change of circumstances occurring after 2021 and it could have been taken-up, only in public interest, and by strictly adhering to Clause 7 of the FCI Circular dated 09.07.2021. Accordingly, it was submitted that the respondents have failed to show any material before the Court that they had exercised visual meticulousness, as envisaged vide the said circular.
26) It is submitted that the Review Committee considered the APAR and vigilance reports in respect of the petitioner by following the guidelines contained in (a) Regulation 22(2) of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971, (b) DoPT OM dated 28.08.2020, and (c) FCI Circular dated 09.07.2021. Thereafter, the Review Committee had made the necessary recommendations in respect of the petitioner to the appropriate authority and accordingly, order dated 12.06.2023 was issued by the Managing Director of FCI. It has been submitted that the criteria laid down in paragraph 10 of the FCI circular dated 09.07.2021 was duly considered and followed by the Review Committee and the entire service record of the writ petitioner, including the memos, show cause notices, charge sheets, penalties, APARs' reading, remarks about integrity and the general reputation of the petitioner in the organization were duly considered and taken into account by the Review Committee.

34) On a perusal of the departmental records, it is seen that the agenda note for the meeting of the Review Committee, scheduled to be held on 06.06.2023 at 10.30 AM reads as follows:

"Review of cases of CAT.I officers (Second time) under Regulation 22(2), working in the corporation who had already attained the age of 50 years and having birth year 1971, 1972 and 1973 (129 Officers)."

35) Thus, the respondent authorities have taken a conscious decision to review cases of CAT-I Officers for the second time under Regulation 22(2), who had already attained the age of 50 years having birth year 1971, 1972 and 1973 (129 Officers). In the list of the officers, for whom recommendations of review committee was solicited contained the name of the petitioner, whose name appears at Sl. No.55 with his date of birth recorded as 29.10.1971 and his date of retirement noted alongside is 31.10.2031. The record discloses that the Review Committee had considered all the APAR Page No.# 17/29 Grading of the petitioner since April, 2000 to December, 2021, out of which, there was no APAR for the period October to December, 2009 containing remark- "Less period no ACR". Upon consideration of the entire vigilance and administrative profile of the petitioner, it has been expressed in the minutes of the meeting of the Review Committee held on 06.06.2023 and 07.06.2023, it is mentioned inter alia that as per the opinion collected from his present and past controlling officers and other officers in the organization, who have worked with him, the general consensus was that the petitioner does not take any responsibility and that is why he was never assigned any sensitive/independent assignments, leaving a few occasions and it was observed that whenever he was assigned the duties to head the Divisional Office, most of the time he got involved in some or other irregularities or graded as weak performer in the assigned duties and accordingly, opinion was expressed that there was petitioner's incompetence of heading senior management post, which requires independent decision making. Opinion was also expressed that the petitioner has always been observed to work in lackadaisical manner with lack of devotion and tries to shirk the assigned responsibilities in one or the other way. Accordingly, the Review Committee took note of the broad criteria for examining these types of cases as indicated vide paragraph-10 of the FCI Circular dated 09.07.2021, which include the criteria that " Govt. servants whose integrity is doubtful, shall be retired". The Review Committee has specifically recorded that it had thoroughly examined the matter in light of available records and rule provision and accordingly, found that as the conduct and reputation of the petitioner establishes him of lacking in integrity, professionalism and seen as bottleneck in the decision making. The Review Committee expressed its opinion that the petitioner has completely failed to discharge his duties in a most Page No.# 18/29 efficient and transparent manner and it was further recorded that with an officer, who cannot discharge his responsibilities with honestly and efficiently, his continuance in service is detrimental to the public interest, especially, considering the fact that the FCI has a responsibility under National Food Security Act, 2013 towards supply of food grains to nearly 2/3rd population of the Country. Accordingly, the Committee expressed its unanimous opinion that continuation of the services of the petitioner is not in the interest of the corporation and public interest in general and therefore, the petitioner deserves to be retired from services of Food Corporation of India in terms of the Regulation 22(2) of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971.