Food Corporation of India and Others vs A. Prahalada Rao

Syed Mohammed Quadri, A.C.J.

Disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the respondent/petitioner while he was in the service of the appellants/respondents. The enquiry resulted in imposing penalty of recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,356.30 from the pay of the respondent/petitioner in twenty one (21) monthly instalments by order dated 12.9.1989 of the first appellant/first respondent. That order was questioned in W.P. No. 14152 of 1989. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the appellants/respondents to conduct an enquiry, if they so choose, and pass orders without prejudice to the contentions of the respondent/petitioner that the initiation of proceedings after ten years is fatal to the disciplinary proceedings. It is the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge that is assailed in this writ appeal.

Mr. P. V. S. S. S. Rama Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/respondents contends that in case of minor penalty, it is not incumbent to conduct any enquiry, therefore, the direction given by the learned single Judge has to be set aside.

Regulation 60 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (fort short ''the Regulations'') deals with ''Imposition of Minor Penalties''. Learned Counsel for the appellants/respondents has referred to Rule (sic. Regulation) 60 of the Regulations presently. But it is relevant to note here the ''Minor Penalties'' are enumerated under Regulation 54 of the Regulations, which are as follows :

"Minor Penalties" : (i) Censure; (ii) Withholding of his promotion; (iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Corporation by negligence or breach of orders; (iv) withholding of increments of pay.

In view of clause (iii) of Regulation 54 recovery has to be made from the pay of the employee if any pecuniary loss is caused by the employee to the Corporation by negligence or breach of orders and that could fall under ''Minor Penalty''. Now we are reverting to Regulation 60 which is in the following terms :

"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 (iv) 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 enquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-regulations (3) to (23) of Regulation 58 before making any order imposing on the employee any such penalty. (3) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include : (i) a copy of the intimation to the employee of the proposal to take action against him; (ii) a copy of the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him; (iii) his representation, if any; (iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry; (v) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (v) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefore.

It may be necessary to note, insofar as it is relevant for our purpose, that a plain reading of the Regulation extracted above shows that for imposing penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Regulation 54, the following steps have to be taken : (1) 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 representations as he may wish to make against the proposal; (2) 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; (3) 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; (4) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour. It may also be necessary to note here clause (3) of Regulation 59 which says that "If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of the Regulation 54 should be imposed on the employee, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 58, make an order imposing such penalty.

Now having regard to the nature of minor penalty in clause (iii) of Regulation 54 which relates to the recovery from the pay of the delinquent officer, of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Corporation by negligence or breach of the orders, it is to be noted that the pecuniary loss referred to therein, is that loss which has not been disputed by the employee, but where the employee disputes that any loss is caused to the Corporation either by his negligence or breach of order, and if so, how much pecuniary loss has been incurred, it is but necessary that an enquiry should be conducted, otherwise it is impossible to arrive at a correct finding with regard to the causing of loss by the employee by his negligence or breach of order and with regard to the quantum of loss.

In this view of the matter and having regard to the provisions of Regulation 60, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge directing to conduct an enquiry is not contrary to the Regulations. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ appeal; it is accordingly dismissed.