RANCHI, India, April 7 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on March 9:

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In the instant application the petitioner prays for grant of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari or an order or direction for quashingi. The Order dated 27/12/2019 whereby the review petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent no. 2 in exercise of his powers conferred under Regulation 74 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (Annexure-7);

ii. The Order as contained in Memo No. 1362 dated 8/9/2017 whereby the respondent no. 3 rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Regulation 72 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (Annexure- 4);

iii. The Order as contained in Memo No. 674 dated 31/12/2014 passed by the respondent no. 4 as disciplinary authority whereby the petitioner has been imposed penalty of reduction to the initial pay in the time scale of pay to the post of AG-II (D) {Assistant Grade-II (Depot)} with cumulative effect under Regulation 56 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (Annexure- 3);

iv. For an appropriate writ or order or direction commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the scale of pay of the petitioner with all consequential benefits and to pay the difference of amount as service benefit as well as retiral benefits;

3. The fact of the case in short is that the petitioner joined the Food Corporation of India on 18.04.1978. He was promoted time to time and lastly he was promoted to the post of AG-II (D). While working as Shed Assistant in Shed No. III at Dhanbad, he was served with a memorandum dated 28.09.2013 of causing shortage in RBC (Rice Boiled Common) and excess bag in RBGA and 295 empty bags of SBT, allegedly resulting in loss to FCI, Departmental Proceeding was initiated. On conclusion of the proceeding, a penalty was imposed on him along with several other employees by common order dated 31.12.2014. Departmental appeal and thereafter review petition, filed by the petitioner were dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition before this Hon'ble Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Shed in-charge was responsible for maintaining all records and stock. Petitioner had no direct role in stock maintenance, and the inspection conducted was faulty, as 100% weighing of the stock matched the declared quantity. He further submits that the allegations are vague and unsustainable. He also submits that the departmental appeal and review petition were dismissed without proper consideration of the petitioner's reply. The appellate and review authorities failed to consider that the petitioner was posted at SWC, Bokaro during the relevant period, and he was not the in-charge of Shed No. III at that time. The petitioner contends that penalty order, appellate order, and review order are unlawful and unfair, leaving him no alternative but to approach the Hon'ble Court for relief.

5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner's claims in the writ petition are misconceived and incorrect as the punishment order was legal and based on finding of proper enquiry. He further submits that during a physical verification of rice stocks, a shortage of food grains and excess empty bags was found in Shed No. III, causing a financial loss to FCI. He also submits that the Inquiry Officer found that the losses had occurred and all concerned employees were responsible according to their roles.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=QnBUxJ6a3gIx%2B5SFrUiAoPo7jdCkw0MilJFMD829ihjkcgk6aM7tEVU5sr%2B2Qy3j&caseno=WPC/661/2021&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010058872021&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.