R.K.Kapoor vs Zonal Manager (North), Food Corporation of India and Another

R.D. Shukla, J.—By means of this petition, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 10th July, 1996 passed by Zonal Manager (North), New Delhi, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 17.12.1991 passed by the Senior Regional Manager, Regional Office, Lucknow punishing the petitioner for stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.A. Rizvi, learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India.

Facts related to this petition revealed that petitioner was a Technical Assistant in Food Corporation of India on a particular date. He alongwith other employees of the same status approved purchase of certain quantity of rice which allegedly was substandard. The petitioner was chargesheeted. There was disciplinary enquiry, the petitioner was punished with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and his appeal was dismissed, resulting in this writ petition.

A similarly situated person of the same department, who was chargesheeted, similarly, namely, Raunak Ali, was also indicted by the Inquiry Officer and same punishment was awarded against him by stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect; but his appeal was allowed. In the appellate order on 9th September, 1994 the appellate officer in the case of Raunak Ali remarked that the evidence adduced was clearly incomplete and the charges against the officer had not been proved. He was exonerated. The appellate authority in the case of the petitioner dismissed the appeal upholding punishment imposed. The enquiry report with regard to the two officials had been based on same conclusions and these conclusions were that charges were proved as per preponderance of probability; but prosecution evidence was found to be weak, defective and incomplete. On these similar conclusions in the departmental enquiries different appellate orders were passed as noted above.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no evidence during the inquiry relating to the charges mentioned and as such neither the enquiry report nor the appellate order justified punishment imposed. It is obvious from the documents, noted above, that the appellate authority adopted different standards in dealing with the inquiry reports of Raunak Ali and the petitioner for no valid reason.

The contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner had force with regard to the conclusion given by the appellate authority as it is not based on any evidence. With regard to the charges framed against the petitioner, the enquiry report on record specifically stated that the evidence adduced in support of the charges had been weak, defective and incorrect and, therefore, there could be no conclusion on the basis of said evidence that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The order of the disciplinary authority imposing stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, therefore, is without any basis and the appellate order upholding it, is without any substance. These orders, therefore, are liable to be quashed.

In the result, the orders dated 10th July, 1996 and the order dated 17th December, 1991 are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. A writ of certiorari, as prayed, is issued.