Bant Singh vs Food Corporation Of India & Others on 24 February, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bant Singh vs Food Corporation Of India & Others on 24 February, 2009

                             Civil Writ Petition No.2811 of 2009
                                Date of Decision: February 24, 2009

Bant Singh


Food Corporation of India & Others
                         .      .     .


PRESENT: -       Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate, for the

                         .      .     .


This civil writ petition filed under

Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays

for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing

Order dated 18/29.12.1999 (Annexure P-8) whereunder

penalty of reduction in Time Scale of Pay by one

stage for a period of one year with the stipulation

that earning increments would be started after

expiry of penalty period from the reduced stage of

pay, has been imposed. Subsequently, the petitioner

carried an appeal and revision which orders dated

23/26.7.2004 (Annexure P-10) and 18.1.2008 (Annexure

P-12) have also been challenged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in

brief, states that the petitioner was transferred
CWP No.2811 of 2009 [2]

out of Patiala on 22.3.1994. Rice was despatched to

Hubli in Karnataka on 29/30.3.1994. On receipt of

Rice at Hubli, it was found that Rice contained

excessive percentage of discolouration, broken

grain, loose bran and it was dull in appearance. The

personnel at the destination i.e. consignee made a

complaint. An opportunity was given for joint

inspection by the persons who had despatched the

Rice i.e. at Patiala. None however availed of joint

inspection opportunity.

Be that as it may, the Enquiry Officer

exonerated the petitioner essentially on the ground

that he stood transferred before the date of

despatch. The Disciplinary Authority differed with

the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer,

however, after giving opportunity of being heard to

the petitioner, so that the petitioner could

persuade the Disciplinary Authority that findings

recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his favour are


Be that as it may, for reasons

recorded in the order, the Disciplinary Authority

imposed penalty on the petitioner as given out

above. Appeal and review filed by the petitioner

have also been dismissed.

It has been projected on behalf of the

petitioner that the petitioner was never given an

opportunity for joint inspection. On a specific

query of the Court to the learned counsel to show
CWP No.2811 of 2009 [3]

the ground taken in this regard, learned counsel has

been unable to point out any specific ground that

had been taken in this regard. Rather, the ground

taken is that the petitioner having been

transferred, was not required to be invited for

joint inspection.

The finding recorded by the

authorities is to the effect that the petitioner was

given opportunity to inspect for joint inspection. I

have also considered the fact that without doubt,

the petitioner alongwith others was incharge of

maintaining grain at Patiala which was found

deficient in quality. There is gap of just about 7/8

days in the date of transfer of the petitioner and

the despatch of rice to Hubli. Learned counsel for

the petitioner has not been able to point out any

defect in decision making process. Decision itself

is sought to be challenged.

After arguing for some time, learned

counsel for the petitioner states that the petition

may be dismissed as withdrawn.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

                                                          (AJAI LAMBA)
February 24, 2009                                            JUDGE

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information