JUDGMENT
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. The petitioner who is category II employee of Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’) and working as Assistant Manager (Q.C.) since designated as Assistant Manager (Technical) in this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing the charge sheet dated 10.12.1991, copy Annexure P-1 to the writ petition, issued by the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Punjab Region, Chandigarh, under Regulation 58 read with Regulation 50 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations’).
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was initially appointed as Class HI employee in the year 1968. He was promoted to the higher posts from time to time. In September, 1980, he was promoted as Assistant Manager (QC) by the Corporation. The appointing/disciplinary authority of the petitioner as Assistant Manager, which is a category II post, is Zonal Manager. Senior Regional Manager, Punjab Region, who is respondent No. 3, issued a show cause notice followed by charge sheet for imposition of major penalty as given in Regulation ยง4 of the Regulations. Respondent No. 3 ordered a regular enquiry against the petitioner vide order dated 31.3.1992, copy Annexure P2 to the writ petition. The petitioner has impugned the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him including the enquiry.
3. The challenge to the enquiry and other proceedings is that the Zonal Manager, who is respondent No. 2 is the disciplinary authority of the petitioner whereas, Senior Regional Manager, is junior to him in the heirarchy. As such, he was not competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
4. The Corporation while defending the action has pleaded that no final order in the matter regarding punishment has been passed as such the writ petition is not maintainable.
5. Learned counsel for the parties were heard and the Regulations governing the conditions of service were perused.
6. After perusing the Regulations, the position emerges is that the petitioner is a Class II employee and in his case the Zonal Manager, respondent No. 2 is appointing/disciplinary authority. It is apparent from the notification dated 31.1.1986 which is at page 212 of the Regulations, that the Regional Manager was competent to inflict minor penalties and the Deputy Zonal Manager was the appellate authority.-However, in case of major penalties, the Senior Regional Manager was competent to inflict major penalties and Zonal Manager was the appellate authority. Appendix II of the Regulations was amended on 16.10.1987. From the perusal of amended Appendix II, it is apparent that the Senior Regional Manager was competent in so far as imposition of minor penalties were concerned whereas for imposition of major penalties, the Zonal Manager was only the competent authority and the Managing Director of the Corporation was the appellate authority.
7. In the instant case it has not been disputed that the charge sheet was issued by respondent No. 3 and he had appointed enquiry officer for imposition of major penalties but under the amended Staff Regulations, this could not be done and the enquiry proceedings should have been initiated by the Zonal Manager.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn this Court’s attention towards Regulations 55 and 56 of the Regulations to show that in case of the petitioner only the Zonal Manager, who was appointing authority of the petitioner could initiate disciplinary proceedings while the Senior Regional Manager, who is junior to the rank of Zonal Manager has no jurisdiction whatsoever to issue charge sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon B.R. Yadav and Ors. v. Food Corporation of India and Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 2108 of decided on September 30, 1994, to fortify his submission that the Senior Regional Manager has no power to issue charge sheet.
9. As mentioned earlier, charge sheet, copy Annexure P-1 to the writ petition, and enquiry proceedings were initiated by the Senior Regional Manager, who is admittedly subordinate to the Punishing Authority. As such, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
10. In case where the deliquent official was appointed by the Executive Committee and was dismissed by the Chief General Manager of the Bank, who was the authority lower than the Executive Committee, it was held that the Chief General Manager at the relevant time had become, under the amended Regulations, the competent authority in respect of deliquent official. It was also held that appointing authority was competent to dismiss the official because the date on which order was passed is relevant for determining competency. This view was taken from State Bank of India v. Vijay Kumar, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 79.
11. For the reasons stated above, the charge sheet dated 10.12.1991, copy Annexure P1 to the writ petition, and other proceedings are quashed as the same were initiated by an incompetent authority.