IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.17402 of 2006
Date of decision: August 12, 2008
Ashok Kumar
-----Petitioner
Vs.
Food Corporation of India and others
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. JS Wasu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. AR Takkar, Advocate for the respondents.
Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.
1. This petition seeks quashing of penalty of compulsory
retirement imposed on the petitioner and also further orders of
appellate and reviewing authorities. Prayer has also been made to
quash the enquiry report and the charge sheet.
2. Case of the petitioner is that he was employed with the
Food Corporation of India. A charge sheet dated 2.4.2003,
Annexure P.1 was given to him in respect of misconduct alleged
i.e. causing of financial loss to the extent of Rs.28,38,451.20. The
petitioner denied the charge and an Enquiry Officer was appointed
who gave his report dated 5.5.2004, Annexure P.2, holding the
CWP No.17402 of 2006 2
charges to be proved. On the basis of the said report, show cause
notice was given to the petitioner and after considering his
representation, impugned order of penalty of compulsory
retirement was passed. The appeal and review of the petitioner
against the said order were dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following
points:-
(i) Authors of Exhibits P.5 and P.6 and reports of the
inspection team were not examined as witnesses and,
thus, the said documents could not be held to have
been proved. Reliance was placed on judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Bareilly
electricity Supply Co. Ltd. V. The Workmen and
others, AIR 1972 SC 330.
(ii) Onus was wrongly placed on the petitioner to
prove his innocence while infact the onus was on the
department to prove the charge. Reliance was placed
on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi
Cloth and General Mills Co., v. Ludh Budh
Singh, AIR 1972 SC 1031.
(iii) Adverse inference was wrongly drawn for the
petitioner having not visited the destination inspite
of opportunity available, which was against the law
laid down in Managing Director, ECIL,
Hyderabad etc. v. B.Karunakar etc,AIR 1994 SC
1074.
(iv) In absence of any charge for the loss caused, the
disciplinary authority erroneously observed that the
petitioner was responsible for the consequential loss.
CWP No.17402 of 2006 3
(v)The appellate authority and the reviewing
authority failed to consider the points raised by the
petitioner, which was against the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander v.
Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1173.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that charge sheet was duly given to the petitioner after
considering his reply. Enquiry officer was appointed who gave
his report. During the course of enquiry, reasonable opportunity
was given to the petitioner. Evidence was taken in his presence
and he was given opportunity to lead evidence. The Enquiry
Officer gave a detailed report dealing with all the points raised.
Documents Exs. P5 and P.6 were duly proved. PW3 RP Singh
confirmed the contents of Exs. P.5 and P.6 as duly noticed by the
Enquiry Officer. No prejudice whatsoever was caused to the
petitioner. The department duly discharged the burden of proving
the charges. The appellate order also deals with all the submission
made. Judgments relied upon on behalf of the petitioner are
distinguishable. He also referred to judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India,AIR 1990
SC 1984 to submit that reasons are not required to be recorded for
an order passed by affirming authority, confirming findings of the
lower authority.
6. We do not find any merit in the writ petition.
CWP No.17402 of 2006 4
7. It is well settled that in exercise of power of judicial
review, interference with the order of disciplinary authority is
permissible only if the finding of Enquiry Officer is based on no
evidence or if there is denial of reasonable opportunity. If enquiry
has been properly conducted, the departmental authority is the
sole judge of the facts. Reference may be made to judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of AP and others v. S. Sree
Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of
India, AIR 1996 SC 484 and High Court of Judicature at
Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, AIR 2000 SC 22. In the present
case, the petitioner was given opportunity to deny the charge.
Evidence was led in his presence and he was given opportunity to
cross examine the witnesses and lead the defence evidence. Copy
of enquiry report was duly served on him before taking the
decision and a speaking order was passed dealing with the
objections. We are unable to hold that it was a case of no
evidence. Infact, the petitioner also did not go to that extent and
only submitted that Exs.P.5 and P.6 were not formally proved
and that burden was wrongly placed. We do not find any merit in
the said objection. The disciplinary authority as well as appellate
authority have examined the case of the petitioner and given
sufficient opportunity. Operative part of the order of punishment
does not deal with the causing of loss. The department duly
CWP No.17402 of 2006 5
discharged the burden of proving the charges. The judgments
relied upon are distinguishable on facts.
8. For the above reasons, we do not find any ground to
interfere with the impugned order.
9. The petition is dismissed.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge
August 12, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg)
'gs' Judge