SHRI TEJ SINGH Vs. FCI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 18.1.2003 passed by the respondent No. 3 imposing penalty of censure and recovery of Rs. 64,756/ - and the order dated 10.8.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e., respondent No. 2 therein.

(2.) THE petitioner who at the relevant time was posted in his capacity as AG II(Depot) at one of the depots of FCI known as Kasganj was held responsible for his failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion in carrying out his duties while posted as the custodian and in -charge of the said depot in his capacity as A.G.II(D), Kasganj. During his said posting it was found that there was a storage loss of 4.56% to 4.86% during storage period of 56 to 83 months. It was also found that the petitioner had accepted higher percentage of moisture in connivance with depot staff and also recorded incorrect moisture at the time of issue/dispatch of stocks due to which the FCI suffered abnormal storage loss valuing Rs.6,67,054.75/ -. Memorandum dated 9.1.2002 proposing initiation of action under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965/Regulation 60 of Food Corporation of India (Staff Regulation) Act, 1971 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was given an opportunity to make representation if he so wished to make against the said enquiry action. Vide representation dated 28.1.2002, the petitioner refuted the charges as framed against him by the FCI. Feeling not satisfied with the plea raised by the petitioner in his said representation, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner and vide order dated 18.1.2003, the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of power conferred under Regulation 56 of FCI (Staff Regulation) Act 1971 imposed the penalty of censure and recovery of Rs.64,756/ - upon the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved with the said order of the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner preferred an appeal as provided under Regulation 69 against the said order of the Disciplinary authority and vide order dated 10.8.2004, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner being devoid of any force.

(3.) OPPOSING the present petition, the respondent has taken preliminary objection to the very maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of seeking a review against the order of the Appellate Authority. Besides this, the respondent has also challenged petition on its merits.