MASHKOOR AHMED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the Ex-Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) of National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (NSIC for brevity). NSIC had taken departmental action against the appellant by serving charge memo dated 16.7.2002. In this charge sheet, as many as 5 articles of charges were framed against the appellant which related to financial assistance/credit facilities to one M/s. Sleep Complaint Forms (P) Ltd. resulting in huge loss to NSIC. Inquiry was held. The appellant participated in the said inquiry. While this inquiry was still on, the appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.8.2002. The inquiry was concluded; Inquiry Officer (IO) submitted his report on 03.10.2002; as per the report, all other charges except Charge No.2 stood proved. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the finding of the IO on all other charges. In respect of Charge No.2, he proposed to disagree and issued show cause notice to the appellant. The appellant filed reply to the show cause notice. Disciplinary Authority after considering the report and the reply of the appellant, came to the conclusion that the appellant was directly responsible for loss of over Rs. 49.92 lacs to the NSIC by acting in the manner as mentioned in the chares viz. he had sanctioned the credit facilities without observing the procedure and guidelines laid down and had shown favour to the said firm and further that he proceeded to destroy the evidence and had allowed the guilty officers to go scot free.

(2.) Since the appellant had already retired from service, the Disciplinary Authority, viz., the President passed the orders dated 05.2.2004 imposing punishment of forfeiture of 50% of gratuity due and 50% of leave encashment. It was this order which is challenged by the appellant by filing writ petition in this Court. That writ petition was taken up by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The impugned order of penalty was challenged on various grounds which included the grounds relating to the validity of the inquiry as well as alleged perversity of the findings as according to the appellant, there was no evidence to come to the conclusion that the charges were proved. All these grounds have been found to be without any merit.

(3.) Apart from challenging the punishment order on merits, the appellant had also argued that the penalty of forfeiture of 50% gratuity and 50% of leave encashment could not be imposed, as there was no such provision in the National Small Industries Corporation Limited (Control and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as NSIC Rules). To put it precisely, the argument was that no such penalty has been prescribed in the aforesaid NSIC Rules. This argument has been brushed aside holding that there are adequate provisions. Reference was made to Rule 5(x) of the NSIC Rules which reads as under: