JUDGMENT
B.K. Sharma, J.
1. By this writ application, the petitioner, as employee of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) working in the capacity of Ag-III (M) has assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 16.7.2002 by which he has been awarded with the penalty of stoppage of promotion for two years.
2. The petitioner was served with the memorandum of charge sheet dated 3.10.2001 making certain allegation and directing him to submit his representation. The memorandum was purportedly issued under Regulation 60 of the FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1971. The charge of imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour reads as follows :
“CHARGE OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT OR MISBEHAVIOUR IN SUPPORT OF ARTICLE FRAMED AGAINT SHRI PRAN KRISHNA DAS, AG-III(M) PRESENTLY WORKING UNDER DISTRICT OFFICE, FCI, NORTH LAKHIMPUR.
Sri Pran Krishna Das, AG-III(M) while functioning in the aforesaid capacity of FCI, FSD, Barpeta Road under District Office, FCI, Bongaigaon had been uttering vulgar language in the office campus writing anonymous letters and threatening people with dire consequences with a view to undermine them before the higher officers.
Sri Das had made false allegation against two physically handicapped staff working in the district office who had been drawing physical handicapped allowance. The matter was investigated into and it was found to be malicious and motivated. It was further informed that Sri Das had teased a lady messenger of FSD, Barpeta Road and desired that she should accompany him while on tour to Shillong and Tura in the month of February 2001.
Sri Pran Krishna Das misbehaved with the Depot Incharge of FSD, Sarbhog when he came to FSD, Barpeta Road for some official works.
Thus, by the above acts Sri Pran Krishna Das, AG-III(M) acted in a manner unbecoming of a Corporation employee, committed gross misconduct and misbehaved thereby contravened Sub-regulations 32(A), (32), (30), (31) (34) of FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1971 for which he had made himself liable for Disciplinary action.
Sd/-
SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER,”
3. On receipt of the aforesaid memorandum, it appears that the petitioner prayed for inspection of documents which according to the petitioner was not allowed. The petitioner submitted his representation against the charges levelled against him on 24.12.2001 denying the charges. In his representation he also took the plea that the charges being vague his representation was in the nature of “beating around the bush”. Thereafter the impugned order of penalty was issued on 16.7.2002 fixing the penalty of stoppage of promotion for two years.
4. I have heard Mr. B.D. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. C. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the FCI. Mr. Lal strenuously argued that on the face of the allegation made against the petitioner, they are vague to the core of it. According to him the penalty of withdrawal of promotion for two years being a major penalty, the impugned order could not have been issued without taking recourse to procedure laid down for conducting enquiry for imposition of major penalty. On the other hand Mr. C. Choudhury, learned counsel representing FCI submitted that the charge sheet being of a minor penalty, there was no necessity to conduct a regular enquiry as contemplated for major penalty. He submitted that the Disciplinary Authority considering the seriousness of the allegation and the reply furnished by the petitioner, imposed the penalty of stoppage of promotions for two years and while doing so took a lenient view of the matter as reflected in the impugned order itself. According to him there is no merit in the writ petition and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.
5. The charge sheet was issued against the petitioner taking recourse to Regulation 60 of the Staff Regulation, 1971. Regulation 60 is reproduced below :
“60. Procedure for imposing minor penalties:
(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 59, no order imposing on an employee any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (vi) of Regulation 54 shall be made except after;
(a) informing the employee in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;
(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in Sub-regulation (3) to (23) of Regulation 58, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;
(c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the employee under Clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under Clause (b) into consideration;
(d) Recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (b) of Sub-regulation (1), if in a case it is proposed, after considering the representation, if any, made by the employee under Clause (a) of the sub-regulation, to withhold increment of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of retirement benefits payable to the employee or
to withhold increments of a pay for a period exceeding 3 years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in Sub-regulations (3) to (23) for Regulation 58 before making any order imposing on the employee any such penalty.”
6. Regulation 54 of the Regulation prescribed the penalties under the heads “Minor penalties and Major penalties”‘. Withholding of promotion has been prescribed to be a minor penalty. Requirements of Regulation 60 laying down the procedure for imposition of minor penalty is that the employee should be informed in writing the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal. The procedure laid down in case of major penalty charge sheet can also be adopted in the event of the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that such enquiry is necessary. The representation submitted by the employee is required to be considered recording findings on imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour as per provisions of Regulation 60(A)(d). In case of withholding of increments, if the same is likely to affect adversely the amount of retirement benefits or in the event of proposal to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years and to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, an enquiry is required to be held in the same manner as in the case of major penalty charge sheet following the procedure laid down under Sub-regulation (3) to (23) of Regulation 58.
7. In the instant case, a bare perusal of the charges levelled against the petitioner reveal that the same are vague and indefinite. A generality has been attached to the charges levelled against the petitioner without there being any material particulars. Charges are omnibus, vague and indefinite. Although Regulation 60 which speaks of informing the employee in writing of the proposal to take action and of the imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour, same cannot be a mere formality. The imputation of misconduct must be in the shape of definite and distinct articles of charge. It is in this context the requirements of Clause (d) of Regulation 60 will have to be understood as per which findings are required to be recorded on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour.
8. The petitioner in his representation dated 24.12.2001 took the specific plea of not understanding the charge for want of relevant particulars and it is in that context, the petitioner took the plea of beating around the bush. At the same time he denied the allegations made against him in emphatic terms.
9. It is in the above backdrop, the impugned order will have to be judged which is quoted below :
ORDER
Whereas, a Memorandum vide even no dated 03.10.2001 was issued to Shri Prankrishna Das, AG-III(M) while working at FSD, Barpeta Road, under District Office Bongaigaon.
Whereas, Shri Das has submitted his reply dated 24.12.2001 has been examined carefully, but it is found that his reply is far from the convincing.
And whereas, the undersigned being a disciplinary authority, taking a lenient view at his belated stage hereby order, the promotion of Shri Prankrishna Das AG-III(M) is held up for a period of 2 (two) years as a penalty which will meet the ends of justice.
The held up of promotion will take effect from the date of issue of this orders.
A copy of this orders be kept in the CR Dossier of Shri Das.”
10. The impugned order except making a general statement of careful consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner and that his reply was far from convincing does not conform to the requirements of recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour as stipulated under Clause 60(d). Thus on both counts i.e. vagueness of the charges and not conforming to the requirements of recording the findings of each charge of misconduct or misbehaviour, the impugned order dated 16.7.2002 is not sustainable.
11. Regulation 60(2) of the aforesaid Regulation mandates following the procedure of major penalty charge sheet and in case of withholding of increments in the manner specified therein in the event of such withholding of increments adversely affecting the amounts of retrial benefits. Withholding of promotion for two years will also have adverse consequence on the retirement benefits of the petitioner. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement and having regard to likely adverse affect on the retirement benefits of the petitioner, the procedure laid down for major penalty charge sheet ought to have been followed instead of resorting to the procedure of minor penalty charge sheet. However, no opinion is expressed regarding this aspect of the matter as the impugned order has already been held to be illegal for the reasons assigned for the same.
12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 16.7.2002 (Annexure-20 to the writ petition) stands set aside and quashed entitling the petitioner to all consequential benefits, if any.
13. Writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.