N Sampangi Reddy vs Food Corporation of India

H.N. Nagamohan Das

This writ petition is flied calling in question the order of penalty dated 19.03.2012- Annexure-T and the order of Appellate Authority dated 15.06.2010 Annexure -Z directing recovery of Rs. 1,42,865/- from the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner. In the year 1965 the petitioner joined the service of respondent - Food Corporation of India as Assistant Grade III. In the year 2001 petitioner was working as Assistant Manager at Regional Office of respondent Corporation at Bangalore. On 14.03.2001 a charge memo was issued to the petitioner as per Annexure D alleging that on 03.05.1999 the petitioner sent a fax message to the District Manager at Hubli to obtain sanction letter from the existing contractor for loading - unloading and transportation of goods on the condition that the contractor will be paid at the rates to be awarded to the new contractor. This fax message sent by the petitioner resuiced in loss of Rs. 1,42,865/- to the respondent Corporation. Being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner enquiry proceedings were initiated. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority by accepting the enquiry report passed the impugned order on penalty - Annexure T directing recovery of Rs. 1,42,865/- from the terminal benefits of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order of penalty the petitioner filed a appeal and the same came to be dismissed as per Annexure Z dated 15.06.2010. Hence, this writ petition.

Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

It is not in dispute that the terms of old contractor for transporting the goods to various destinations came to an end on 30.04.1999. Further it is not in dispute that new tenders were not finalised by 30.04.1999. In the circumstances there was compelling need to continue the services of old contractor for further period on some terms and conditions. The material on record discloses that the old contractor had given undertaking 29.04.1999 as per Annexure A and the same reads as under:

Please refer to the work order cited. We are willing to undertake transportation work Ex-FSD, Bommapur to FSD, Unkal as per the same terms of the contract until fiirthcr orders, and rate to be awarded in the new contract.

This is with -e Prence to the discussion had with District Manager, Food Corpn. Of India, Hubli.

The above undertaking Annexure A was given by the old contractor to tie; District Manager in the office of respondent Corporation at Hubli. This undertaking further specifies that the same was given on the basis of discussion by the Contractor with the District Manager at Hubli. Further it specifies that a copy of the undertaking was also sent to the Senior Regional Manager of the respondent Corporation at Bangalore. Pursuant to this undertaking the Regional Manager at Hubli permitted the contractor to lift the goods and transport the same to various destinations and by 03.05.1999 as many as 26 trips were carried out by the contractor. The consent letter Annexure A and the consequent transportation of the materials was 3 days earlier to the fax message sent by the petitioner. Therefore the loss if any accrued is not on account of the fax message sent by the petitioner but on account of entrusting the transportation work to the earlier contractor by taking the consent letter Annexure-A dated 29.04.1999 by the District Mc-,nar,r at Hub. The Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the _Appellate Authority failed to take this aspect of the matter in to consideration. Thus the entire approach of the respondent has resulted in failure of justice.

The fax message referred to in the charge sheet issued to the petitioner is found at Annexure B. The petitioner admits that he has sent the fax message Annexure B on the instructions of the then Senior Regional Manager - R. Kicubiikaran. In the enquiry the petitioner requested the respondent Corporation to permit him to examine the Senior Regional Manager. Further the petitioner has also stated the relevancy for examination of this witness. Despite the request of the petitioner and the relevancy of the witness the Enquiry Officer has not directed the respondent Corporation to produce this witness. Non-examination of this witness is a procedural irregularity committed in th� enquiry proceedings. Or this ground also the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

Further it is not the case of the respondent Corporation that the petitioner has shown official favour to a third party, that is, old contractor to make wrongful gain. It is also not the case of the respondent Corporation that the petitioner by abusing his position as Assistant Manager sent the fax message and made wrongful gain for himself. In the circumstances it is not just and proper to recover a -aum of Rs. 1,42,865/- from the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, the following;

ORDER

i. Writ petition is hereby allowed.

ii The impugned order of penalty dated 19.03.2012 Annexure -T and the order of Appellate Authority dated 15.06.2010 Annexure Z are hereby quashed.

iii. The respondent Corporation is hereby directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,42,865/- deducted from the terminal benefits of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt cf copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.