{"id":51160,"date":"2011-04-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-03-31T09:56:49","modified_gmt":"2017-03-31T04:26:49","slug":"m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"M.S.Sapra vs The Managing Director on 27 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
M.S.Sapra vs The Managing Director on 27 April, 2011<\/div>\n
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                   CHANDIGARH\n\n                        Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M)\n                        Date of decision:27 .04.2011\n\n\n\nM.S.Sapra                                                  ....Petitioner\n\n\n                              versus\n\n\n\nThe Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, Head Quarters, 16-\n20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi and others.          ....Respondents\n\n\nII.   Civil Writ Petition No.11623 of 1989 (O&M)\n\nA.K.Behal                                                  ....Petitioner\n\n\n                              versus\n\n\n\nThe Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, Head Quarters, 16-\n20,. Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi and others.         ....Respondents\n\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN\n                     ----\n\nPresent:    Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP\n            No.10966 of 1989.\n\n            Mr. G.S.Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP\n            No.11623 of 1989.\n\n            Mr. B.S.Wasu, Advocate, for the respondents.\n                            ----\n\n1.    Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the\n      judgment ? No.\n2.    To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes.\n3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes.\n                                ----\n Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M)                    -2-\n\nK.Kannan, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.          Both the cases are inter-related arising out of a same<\/p>\n
transaction. The writ petitioners had been named as having been guilty<\/p>\n
of serious misconduct resulting in the loss of 200 bags of foodgrains<\/p>\n
from the Food Corporation of India. The petitioner in CWP No.10966 of<\/p>\n
1989 was an Assistant Grade-I in depot of the Food Corporation of India<\/p>\n
at the relevant time and the petitioner in CWP No.11623 of 1989 was a<\/p>\n
subordinate under him. In a surprise inspection carried out by Shri<\/p>\n
S.S.Grewal, Assistant Manager (Vigilance), it was alleged that 200 bags<\/p>\n
of paddy PR106 variety were found missing and articles of charges had<\/p>\n
been levelled against both the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
2.          In the charges issued to Mr.M.S.Sapra, the petitioner in<\/p>\n
CWP No.10966 of 1989, the principal allegations were that (i) he had<\/p>\n
misappropriated 200 bags of paddy, (ii) he had not verified the entries<\/p>\n
made on 24.01.1984 in the stock wise and shed wise registers, and (iii)<\/p>\n
he had deliberately showed himself as absent on that day by making<\/p>\n
corrections in the official records. The charges against Shri A.K.Behal,<\/p>\n
who is the petitioner in CWP No.11623 of 1989, were substantially the<\/p>\n
same in relation to the loss of grains and it was stated that (i) he had<\/p>\n
misappropriated 200 bags of paddy and (ii) he had not produced inward<\/p>\n
and outward gate passes at ARDC Kilaraipur but remained absent on<\/p>\n
duty from 16.04.1986.\n<\/p>\n
3.          A domestic enquiry was constituted and on the basis of the<\/p>\n
report which was, however, not communicated to the petitioners, the<\/p>\n
disciplinary authority passed orders of removal from service and other
\n Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M)                       -3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
punishments. There had been an appeal and review against these<\/p>\n
decisions and on a direction from this Court through a writ petition filed<\/p>\n
by Mr. M.S.Sapra, the authority was directed to dispose of review<\/p>\n
application filed by Mr. Sapra. On a        review so undertaken by the<\/p>\n
competent authority from the original order of removal from service, the<\/p>\n
findings had been modified exonerating him from the charges of<\/p>\n
misappropriation and for alleged alteration of official records and found<\/p>\n
him guilty only for one charge namely that he had not verified the stock<\/p>\n
wise and shed wise entries that had resulted in the loss to the Food<\/p>\n
Corporation of India. In so far as the case relating to Mr. Behal was<\/p>\n
concerned, the charges as found already as proved continued and while<\/p>\n
Mr. Behal was dismissed from service, Mr. Sapra had been served with<\/p>\n
three types of punishments: (i) reversion from the post of AG-I(D) to<\/p>\n
AG-II(D) in the minimum of times scales of 380-640, and (ii) forfeiture<\/p>\n
of seniority and fixation of the same in the lowest position in the<\/p>\n
seniority list of AG-II(D). Even apart from the above two punishments,<\/p>\n
he had also been inflicted with the treatment that from the date of<\/p>\n
dismissal till the date when he rejoined the duty, it be considered as non<\/p>\n
duty period. The findings entered by the disciplinary authority and the<\/p>\n
appellate authority are challenged in both the writ petitions.<\/p>\n
4.           The focal area of concern is whether the management had<\/p>\n
proved that there had been a loss of 200 bags of paddy as charges against<\/p>\n
both the employees. If the contention of the petitioners were to be<\/p>\n
accepted that there had been no theft at all or at any rate the said fact had<\/p>\n
not been established, then it will have immediately a bearing on the
\n Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M)                     -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
ancillary charges of whether there was any dereliction of duty in not<\/p>\n
maintaining the registers by Mr.Sapra. The issue that stands for<\/p>\n
consideration immediately is whether there had been a proof of the<\/p>\n
charge of the loss of 200 bags of paddy.\n<\/p>\n
5.          It is on the alleged proof of the loss of paddy that a<\/p>\n
punishment of removal from service has been inflicted on the petitioner<\/p>\n
Mr. Behal in CWP No.11623 of 1989. The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner points out to the fact that the alleged loss was said to have<\/p>\n
been detected by Mr. Grewal when he found that there was a discrepancy<\/p>\n
between two registers namely, the stock wise, shed wise and muster<\/p>\n
ledger and daily issued statements maintained by Mr. Behal showed that<\/p>\n
600 bags of paddy had been issued to a party whereas as per the gate<\/p>\n
pass and outward register, a total of 800 bags of paddy had been issued<\/p>\n
by the Food Storage Depot (FSD) to the party. This discrepancy of 200<\/p>\n
was said to constitute the theft of 200 bags from FSD.<\/p>\n
6.          The theft had been denied and it was contended that the<\/p>\n
entry of 800 bags of paddy in the gate pass as per the gate pass and<\/p>\n
outward register, was wrong. When both the employees were denying<\/p>\n
that there had been any such theft, the primary duty would be, therefore,<\/p>\n
to establish that there had indeed been a loss of 200 bags of paddy. This<\/p>\n
could have proved by an actual verification in the stocks available in the<\/p>\n
FSD to find that there had been 200 bags of paddy which had fallen<\/p>\n
short. Another method of proof would have been to examine the person,<\/p>\n
who was manning the gate and issuing gate passes and outward register<\/p>\n
to say that there had been actually a passage of 800 bags of paddy
\n Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M)                     -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
through the gate. In either way, the proof of actual loss would have been<\/p>\n
possible either by physical verification or by examination of person, who<\/p>\n
had seen that 800 bags of paddy had passed through the gate. Strangely,<\/p>\n
in this case, both these aspects had not been established at all. The<\/p>\n
Enquiry Officer did no more than a finding of discrepancy between the<\/p>\n
shed wise register and the gate passes to come to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
there had been a loss of 200 bags.\n<\/p>\n
7.          The learned counsel for the employee points out that one<\/p>\n
Mr. A.S.Dhillon, who was working at FSD, Kilaraipur, had been<\/p>\n
examined by the management to say that he was present in the depot on<\/p>\n
25.01.1984 and that he had seen the gate passes P12 and P16.<\/p>\n
Significantly, the person, who wrote the gate passes themselves had not<\/p>\n
been examined but even his evidence was merely to the following<\/p>\n
effect:-\n<\/p>\n
            “…….. I do not know how much time is consumed in the<\/p>\n
            process of preparation of 200 bags. It is not possible to<\/p>\n
            prepare extra bags by collecting the grains for 200 bags.<\/p>\n
            No AG-I or AG-II in the godown can make up 200 bags.<\/p>\n
            The watchman standing at the gate cannot count the loaded<\/p>\n
            truck.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
His evidence was, therefore, not sufficient to find that 800 bags of paddy<\/p>\n
had been transported out of the depot. One P.S.Bali, A.M.(D), FSD,<\/p>\n
Kilaraipur, who was said to have seen the registers had given the<\/p>\n
following statement:-\n<\/p>\n
            “…….On scrutiny of the break up of paddy issued from FSD
\n Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M)                   -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
            and hired godown Kilaraipur, it was observed that in stock<\/p>\n
            wise, shedwise register of FSD 600 bags paddy PR 106<\/p>\n
            have been issued to party whereas as per gate pas and<\/p>\n
            outward register a totallying 800 bags paddy PR 106 have<\/p>\n
            been issued accordingly. I sent a report dated 14.8.84 to<\/p>\n
            the D.M.F.C.I. Ludhiana. I confirm the entry in gatepasses<\/p>\n
            and outward register to be correct. On 24.1.84 I was on<\/p>\n
            tour at FSD Gill Road Ludhiana being incharge of FSD Gill<\/p>\n
            Road.    No short\/excess have been pointed out by the<\/p>\n
            P.V.Squad till date in respect of paddy stored in FSD<\/p>\n
            Kilaraipur.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
His evidence cannot be relied for any more than the actual discrepancy<\/p>\n
found in the two registers. Whether there existed a deficiency of 200<\/p>\n
bags of paddy at FSD cannot be seen through this record. Mr. Grewal<\/p>\n
had also given evidence and he had stated as follows:-<\/p>\n
            “…..On scrutiny of the record I noticed that 600 bags of<\/p>\n
            paddy were issued to the party whereas as per gate pass<\/p>\n
            outward register its number was 800. There was overall<\/p>\n
            difference of 200 bags issued from the FSD with that of gate<\/p>\n
            passes and outward register. The entries in the gate passes<\/p>\n
            and gate outward register differ with the entries of<\/p>\n
            stockwise register. I did not check up empty bags physically<\/p>\n
            but I checked the account thereof. I do not know whether<\/p>\n
            paddy was issued on DFSC pattern on FCI pattern.”
\n Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M)                      -7-<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
He has also spoken about only the fact that there existed discrepancies in<\/p>\n
the registers, but he had not himself physically verified whether there had<\/p>\n
been a loss of 200 bags of paddy or not.\n<\/p>\n
8.          It was on the basis of the above extracted evidence and that<\/p>\n
the Enquiry Officer found the charge of the actual loss of 200 bags of<\/p>\n
paddy as having been established to find Mr. Behal as guilty and to<\/p>\n
justify the disciplinary action to dismiss him from service. It was again<\/p>\n
this evidence that was found sufficient to hold that Mr. Sapra had failed<\/p>\n
to properly maintained registers and that he was guilty of dereliction of<\/p>\n
duty.\n<\/p>\n
9.          The extent of judicial review of decisions in departmental<\/p>\n
proceedings are reasonably well known. A Court does not sit as a Court<\/p>\n
of appeal and it has to only ensure that the procedure as established by<\/p>\n
law has been duly followed and the decision follows an obvious<\/p>\n
inference of the evidence adduced before the fact finding authority. It<\/p>\n
may not at all times be the sufficiency of evidence that will be called in<\/p>\n
question but the ultimate decision will be considered in the light of<\/p>\n
whether there existed any evidence at all to support the findings.<\/p>\n
Keeping the above well laid out precepts in background, I find that in<\/p>\n
this case there is absolutely no evidence at all to support the ultimate<\/p>\n
finding that there had been a loss of 200 bags of paddy. If the whole<\/p>\n
case was to be decided only on what was contained in the registers<\/p>\n
without any cross verification of what was contained in the registers by<\/p>\n
physical appraisals of the stocks, then the charge ought to have been<\/p>\n
different that the entries were not properly made in the respective
\n Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M)                       -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
registers. If the charge, however, is that there arose a loss of 200 bags of<\/p>\n
paddy by one or the other officer being guilty of fraudulent removal for<\/p>\n
personal aggrandizement, then there ought to be proof that what was<\/p>\n
reflected in the registers was verified and found to be wrong. If 200 bags<\/p>\n
of paddy had gone missing and any officer was found to be responsible,<\/p>\n
such a finding cannot be rendered without actually making a physical<\/p>\n
verification for 200 bags of paddy were missing or by examining the<\/p>\n
person at the gate, who had issued the pass that he had verified that 800<\/p>\n
bags of paddy had been transported through 5 vehicles that went past the<\/p>\n
gate. In this case, at the pre-enquiry stage, a statement was said to have<\/p>\n
been recorded from the watchman Harbans Lal that 800 bags were<\/p>\n
discharged through 5 trucks but he was not himself examined and the<\/p>\n
statement itself was taken as affording proof that 800 bags had gone<\/p>\n
from the gate.    This assumes significance because Mr. A.S.Dhillon<\/p>\n
admitted in the cross-examination before the Enquiry Officer that a<\/p>\n
watchman standing on the gate cannot count the loaded truck and,<\/p>\n
therefore, it was required to be explained how the watchman had given<\/p>\n
the statement.\n<\/p>\n
10.          If there had been no evidence at all with reference to the loss<\/p>\n
of 200 bags either through the actual physical verification or through the<\/p>\n
evidence of the witnesses, the findings that came to be passed that Mr.<\/p>\n
Behal was responsible was not justified. It was sought to be buttressed<\/p>\n
by the fact that he was questioned whether he had anything to say and<\/p>\n
Mr. Behal is reported to have had that he had issued 5 gate passes<\/p>\n
containing 160 bags each and the watchman’s entry was only on the basis
\n Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M)                      -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
of such passes. He had also explained that after the issue of the gate<\/p>\n
passes, the party had requested to issue bags from the same godown from<\/p>\n
where some other bags had been issued and so as per the request, he had<\/p>\n
issued 600 bags from the godown which was under his charge and 200<\/p>\n
bags from the other godown. This was a manner of explanation as to<\/p>\n
how all the 800 bags of paddy did not go from the godown under his<\/p>\n
supervision. The Enquiry Officer also held that since Shri S.S.Grewal<\/p>\n
and Mr.A.S.Dhillon had both stated that they had found a discrepancy in<\/p>\n
the entries between the two registers, the burden of proof was on the two<\/p>\n
charged officers to say that they had not been responsible for the loss of<\/p>\n
the stock. This observation also is a wrong statement of law for the<\/p>\n
burden of proof never shifts. If the officer was explaining that 600 bags<\/p>\n
of paddy alone had been seen from the godown under his control and<\/p>\n
another 200 bags of paddy had gone from yet another godown, it was<\/p>\n
absolutely essential to find whether such a statement was correct or not<\/p>\n
and that 800 bags of paddy had not left from the godown under the<\/p>\n
control of Mr. Behal and Mr. Sapra.\n<\/p>\n
11.         On a point of law, the contention on behalf of the petitioners<\/p>\n
was that they had not been given the copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report<\/p>\n
and, therefore, the ultimate order finding them guilty was vitiated. It<\/p>\n
must be noticed that in the case of Mr. Sapra after a direction from this<\/p>\n
Court for examination of his case for review, the disciplinary authority<\/p>\n
dealt with the case on the basis of objection given by the charged officer<\/p>\n
to the Enquiry Officer’s report. Consequently, at the relevant time before<\/p>\n
a decision was taken by the disciplinary authority, the charged officer
\n Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M)                     – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
had the benefit of meeting the findings of the Enquiry Officer and,<\/p>\n
therefore, he could not have been prejudiced in any way. As regards the<\/p>\n
charges against Mr. Behal, the Enquiry Officer had given a report on<\/p>\n
16.07.1987 and the order of the disciplinary authority was passed on<\/p>\n
13\/27.08.1987.    The disciplinary authority proceeded to dismiss him<\/p>\n
from service by the impugned order and it was only after pronouncement<\/p>\n
of this order at the time of preferring the appeal, Mr. Behal had obtained<\/p>\n
a copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report to assail the finding.           The<\/p>\n
disciplinary authority had definitely denied to Mr. Behal a sufficient<\/p>\n
opportunity to point out as to how the Enquiry Officer’s report was<\/p>\n
faulted. As far as Mr. Behal was concerned, he was clearly prejudiced by<\/p>\n
not being supplied the copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report.<\/p>\n
12.         The fact of non-supply of the Enquiry Officer’s report and<\/p>\n
the issue whether such a lapse would constitute a violation of natural<\/p>\n
justice was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Constitution<\/p>\n
Bench in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Versus B. Karunakar-<\/p>\n
1993(5) SC 533. The decision was in the context of the 42nd Amendment<\/p>\n
of the Constitution that allowed to the government servant a right to<\/p>\n
receive the report of the Enquiry Officer and represent against the<\/p>\n
findings recorded. The Constitution Bench was examining the right to<\/p>\n
be served with report at the second stage of the disciplinary enquiry<\/p>\n
when a government servant shall serve with a notice to show cause<\/p>\n
against a proposed penalty. While holding that a delinquent was entitled<\/p>\n
to a copy of the report, even when the statutory rules did not permit, the<\/p>\n
Court explained that the law laid down in Union of India Versus Mohd.\n<\/p>\n
 Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M)                     – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
Ramzan Khan-1991(1) SLR 159 (SC) must be understood in such a way<\/p>\n
of whether it was specifically provided under rules or not, a copy of the<\/p>\n
report must always be furnished even if he does not ask for it. The<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, laid down one more qualification for<\/p>\n
this principle to apply viz. of a person who complained of violation of<\/p>\n
natural justice for non-furnishing of report must prove prejudice and the<\/p>\n
issue of whether a prejudice has been caused or not has to be examined<\/p>\n
in the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
held that the question as to whether the employee was entitled to back<\/p>\n
wages and other benefits from the date of dismissal to the date of<\/p>\n
reinstatement should invariably be left to be decided by the authority<\/p>\n
according to law. In this case, the non-furnishing of copy of the Enquiry<\/p>\n
Officer’s report had surely prejudiced Mr. Behal in his inability to point<\/p>\n
out as to how the finding had been completely vitiated by the lack of<\/p>\n
evidence appropriate to an adjudication whether there had been a<\/p>\n
misappropriation or a fraudulent removal of Mr. Behal to 200 bags of<\/p>\n
paddy. I am not examining certain other decisions which had been cited<\/p>\n
by the learned counsel to show as to how the non-furnishing of the<\/p>\n
Enquiry Officer’s report would amount to violation of natural justice.<\/p>\n
13.         Even without reference to the fact that the Enquiry Officer’s<\/p>\n
report had not been given, I have already pointed out that the report of<\/p>\n
the Enquiry Officer cannot be sustained by the mere fact of a discrepancy<\/p>\n
in entry between two registers. The discrepancy was required to be<\/p>\n
corroborated by actual verification which was not done in this case. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the decision in Natinder
\n Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M)                     -12 –\n<\/p>\n
Mohan Arya Versus United India Insurance Company Limited and<\/p>\n
others-AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1748(1) that held that             even in<\/p>\n
domestic enquiry suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of<\/p>\n
proof and this Court is entitled to interfere with the findings of fact of<\/p>\n
any Tribunal or authority in certain circumstances.         Detailing the<\/p>\n
circumstances in para 26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:-<\/p>\n
            “In our opinion the learned single Judge and consequently<\/p>\n
            the Division bench of the High Court did not pose unto<\/p>\n
            themselves the correct question. The matter can be viewed<\/p>\n
            from two angles. Despite limited jurisdiction a civil court,<\/p>\n
            it was entitled to interfere in a case where the report of the<\/p>\n
            Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence. In a suit filed by a<\/p>\n
            delinquent employee in a civil court as also a writ court, in<\/p>\n
            the event the findings arrived at in the departmental<\/p>\n
            proceedings are questioned before it should keep in mind<\/p>\n
            the follow:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (1)   the Enquiry Officer is not permitted to collect any<\/p>\n
            materia from outside sources during the conduct of the<\/p>\n
            enquiry.      [See State of Assam and another Versus<\/p>\n
            Mahendra Kumar Das and others (1970) 1 SCC 709: AIR<\/p>\n
            1970 SC 1255<\/p>\n
            (2)   In a domestic enquiry fairness in the procedure is a<\/p>\n
            part of the principles of natural justice [See Khem Chand v.<\/p>\n
            Union of India and others AIR<\/a> 1958 SC 300 and State of<\/p>\n
            Uttar Pradesh v. Om Prakash Gupta<\/a> (1969) 3 SCC 775.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M)                     - 13 -\n\n           (3)    Exercise of discretionary power involve two elements:\n\n<\/pre>\n
           (i) Objective and (ii) subjective and existence of the exercise<\/p>\n
           of an objective element is a condition precedent for exercise<\/p>\n
           of the subjective element. [See K.L. Tripathi Versus State of<\/p>\n
           Bank of India and others: (1984) 1 SCC 43: AIR 1984 SC<\/p>\n
           273<\/span><\/p>\n
           (4)    It is not possible to lay down any rigid rules of the<\/p>\n
           principles of natural justice which depends on the facts and<\/p>\n
           circumstances of each case but the concept of fair play in<\/p>\n
           action is the basis.    [See Sawai Singh Versus State of<\/p>\n
           Rajasthan AIR 1986 SC 995<\/p>\n
           (5)    The Enquiry Officer is not permitted to travel beyond<\/p>\n
           the charges and any punishment imposed on the basis of a<\/p>\n
           finding which was not the subject-matter of the charges is<\/p>\n
           wholly illegal. [See Director (Inspection and Quality<\/p>\n
           Control) Export Inspect Council of India and others<\/p>\n
           Versus Kalyan Kumar Mitra and others 1987 (2) CLJ<\/p>\n
           3441<\/span><\/p>\n
           (6)    Suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of<\/p>\n
           proof even in a domestic enquiry. The writ court is entitled<\/p>\n
           to interfere with the findings of the fact of any tribunal or<\/p>\n
           authority in certain circumstances. [See Central Bank of<\/p>\n
           India Limited Versus Prakash Chand Jain AIR 1969 SC<\/p>\n
           983, Kuldeep Singh Versus Commissioner of Police and<\/p>\n
           others (1999) 2 SCC 10.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M)                      – 14 –<\/p>\n
A Division Bench of this Court has also held in P.R.T.C. Versus Dhani<\/p>\n
Ram 2001 (1) PLR 585 that a punishment order based on no evidence<\/p>\n
and passed on violation of principles of natural justice is liable to be<\/p>\n
interfered with by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. This principle<\/p>\n
finds affirmation by a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Yoginath D. Bagde Versus State of Maharashtra-1999(7) SCC 739 that<\/p>\n
held in paragraph 51 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
            “……The law is well-settled that if the findings are perverse<\/p>\n
            and are not supported by evidence on record or the findings<\/p>\n
            recorded at the domestic trial are such to which no<\/p>\n
            reasonable person would have reached, it would be open to<\/p>\n
            the High Court as also to this Court to interfere in the<\/p>\n
            matter…………. It was observed that the power of judicial<\/p>\n
            review available to a High Court as also to this Court under<\/p>\n
            the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as<\/p>\n
            well and the Courts can interfere with the conclusions<\/p>\n
            reached therein if there was no evidence to support the<\/p>\n
            findings or the findings recorded were such as could not<\/p>\n
            have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the<\/p>\n
            findings were perverse.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.         In the above circumstances, I have no doubt in my mind that<\/p>\n
the finding entered by the disciplinary authority and the appellate<\/p>\n
authority that the charges had been established against Mr. Behal was<\/p>\n
clearly wrong. The punishment of removal from service is liable to be<\/p>\n
interfered with. The impugned orders are quashed and the petitioner in
\n Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M)                       -15 –\n<\/p>\n
CWP No.11623 of 1989 is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of<\/p>\n
service. He would also be entitled to 50% of back wages and not the full<\/p>\n
wages, having regard to the fact that he had not worked for the whole<\/p>\n
period. If he has already reached the age of superannuation, he shall be<\/p>\n
entitled to 50% back wages, as well as the terminal benefits and they<\/p>\n
shall be calculated and the amount released to him within 12 weeks from<\/p>\n
the date of the order.\n<\/p>\n
15.          As regards the findings recorded against Mr. Sapra, it was<\/p>\n
held that he was guilty only to the charge laid in article 2, namely, that he<\/p>\n
had not verified the entries on 24.01.1984 in stock wise and shed wise<\/p>\n
registers. There had been a discrepancy in registers, but this finding will<\/p>\n
have to be re-examined in the context of a changed decision that has<\/p>\n
come through in this writ petition that there was no proof that there was<\/p>\n
loss of 200 bags of paddy. However, he could not have been visited with<\/p>\n
punishment which was rendered in the context of a finding recorded in<\/p>\n
the case against Mr. Behal that there had been a loss\/misappropriation.<\/p>\n
The punishment of Mr. Sapra would be required to be re-examined in the<\/p>\n
context of a finding that there had been no loss but a punishment<\/p>\n
corresponding to the lapse on his part was only that of not properly<\/p>\n
verifying the discrepancy in entries between the stock wise and shed<\/p>\n
wise registers. The impugned order issuing the punishment is set aside<\/p>\n
and remitted to the disciplinary authority for re-examination on the issue<\/p>\n
of punishment only in the context of finding rendered above.<\/p>\n
16.          CWP No.11623 of 1989 filed by Mr. Behal is allowed and<\/p>\n
in CWP No.10966 of 1989, the punishment meted out to Mr.Sapra under
\n Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M)                  -16 –\n<\/p>\n
the orders are set aside and remitted to the disciplinary authority for<\/p>\n
consideration regarding punishment in accordance with law.          CWP<\/p>\n
No.10966 of 1989 is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                (K.KANNAN)
\n                                                  JUDGE
\n27 .04.2011
\nsanjeev\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court M.S.Sapra vs The Managing Director on 27 April, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10966 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:27 .04.2011 M.S.Sapra ….Petitioner versus The Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, Head Quarters, 16- 20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi and others. ….Respondents II. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51160","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.S.Sapra vs The Managing Director on 27 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.S.Sapra vs The Managing Director on 27 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-31T04:26:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.S.Sapra vs The Managing Director on 27 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-31T04:26:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4030,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011\",\"name\":\"M.S.Sapra vs The Managing Director on 27 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-31T04:26:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.S.Sapra vs The Managing Director on 27 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.S.Sapra vs The Managing Director on 27 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.S.Sapra vs The Managing Director on 27 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-31T04:26:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.S.Sapra vs The Managing Director on 27 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-31T04:26:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011"},"wordCount":4030,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011","name":"M.S.Sapra vs The Managing Director on 27 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-31T04:26:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-sapra-vs-the-managing-director-on-27-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.S.Sapra vs The Managing Director on 27 April, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51160","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=51160"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51160\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51160"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51160"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51160"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}