GUWAHATI, India, June 18 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on May 20:
[1.] Heard Mr. S Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B J Medhi for the petitioner and also Mr. P K Roy, learned Senior Counsel and Standing Counsel, FCI assisted by Ms. A Chakraborty for the respondents. [2.] By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Enquiry Report dated 31.12.2023, the impugned Order dated 19.09.2005 by which, the penalty of reversion to the next lower post of AG-I(D) has been imposed upon him till his retirement with immediate effect and the Order dated 30.11.2005 (Copy not annexed) by which, the pay of the petitioners have been re-fixed.
[2.] Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner while working as Assistant Manager (D), Food Corporation of India (FCI) and in-charge of Food Storage Depot (FSD) Dikom, Dibrugarh was issued a Memorandum of Charge dated 10.02.2003 vide Covering Letter dated 25.02.2003 (Annexure-I) requiring him to show-cause within a period of 10 days of receipt of the memorandum by submitting a written statement of defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. Alongwith the said communication, apart from the Memorandum of Charge framed under Rule 58 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (Regulations of 1971), the petitioner was given the statement of Article of Charge, statement of imputation of misconduct and misbehavior with the list of witnesses, for proving the charge against him. Although the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence but the enquiry officer, upon examining two out of the three Departmental witnesses, came to the conclusion through the enquiry report dated 31.12.2003 that the charge framed against the petitioner was found to be sustainable. The petitioner was then given an opportunity to submit his representation against the enquiry report by being furnished a copy of the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his representation against the enquiry report on 12.09.2005 denying the charges as well as the finding of the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority, not being satisfied with his reply/representation, proceeded to issue the impugned Order dated 19.09.2005 (Annexure-IV) by which, the petitioner was imposed with a penalty of reversion to the next lower post of AG-I (D) and placement at the minimum basic pay in the pay scale of AG-I (D) till retirement and with immediate effect under Regulation 56 of the Regulations of 1971.
[3.] The petitioner being aggrieved submitted an appeal before the Managing Director, FCI, New Delhi on 07.11.2005 but however, his appeal came to be rejected by the said authority vide Order dated 21.11.2006. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
[4.] Be it stated herein that the writ petition was filed on 10.09.2012 while the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2012. After the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner expired on 08.10.2016. On account of his death, the wife of the petitioner, his son and two daughters have been impleaded as petitioner Nos. 1(i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) vide Order dated 07.03.2018 passed in I.A(Civil) No. 637/2018. However, for the sake of convenience the original petitioner shall be still referred to as the petitioner hereafter as well.
[5.] Mr. S Dutta, learned Senior Counsel submits that since the cause of action submits, the legal heirs of the petitioner have been impleaded in his place. He submits that although the shortages alleged to have been found was written off as per the sanction made on 23.12.2001 but the respondent authorities for reasons best known to them proceeded to initiate Departmental proceedings against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 10.02.2003.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=LfKgAEL6K8Sqqfv6TysK%2BGOzhEwWR3HLiAjACpmIQLtmwOcJPA6dqHXpgXeM7D%2Fa&caseno=WP(C)/4379/2012&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010008332012&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
