CHAMY Vs. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, a retired Assistant Depot Manager of the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter used acronym 'F.C.I.') questions the infliction of penalty of debarring his two increments with cumulative effect in the disciplinary trial stemming from Ext. P1 and ending with Ext. P10. Accusing misconduct against him the first respondent proposed to hold an enquiry under S.5 of the Regulation.58 of the Staff Regulations.

(2.) The charges displayed from Ext. P1 are that the petitioner failed to maintain devotion to duty and promote the interests of the Corporation and also acted in a manner most unbecoming of a responsible officer. Readily controverting those charges he submitted Ext. P2 statement and pleaded not guilty. By order dated 28th October 1.987 Sri Richard D'Souza, Joint Manager (Inquiry) had been appointed as the Inquiry Officer displacing the Officer earlier nominated. Ext. P3 report submitted by the Inquiry Officer after conducting the inquiry unearthed that the articles of charges framed against the petitioner had not been conclusively proved. In contrary to the expectation he had received Ext. P4 order dated 27th September 1989 from the second respondent disciplinary authority imposing upon him penalty of withholding two increments due for 1990 and 1991 with cumulative effect, along with the copy of the enquiry report. As against this order, Ext. P5 (a) appeal had been filed before the third respondent Managing Director of F.C.I, through proper channel as allowed under Regulation.70 of the Food Corporation of India Staff Regulation, 1971. Though Ext. P5 (a) had been presented on 29th November 1989 no tangible step was taken to deal with the appeal immediately. Therefore he submitted Ext. P7 representation on 5th December 1992 to the third respondent requesting to dispose of Ext. P5 (a) appeal expeditiously. In the meanwhile the petitioner retired from service on 31st May 1993. Again he submitted Ext. P9 representation dated 25th August 1995 soliciting the third respondent for immediate action.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the apparent abdication of duty by the third respondent the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying to quash Ext. P4 order dated 27th September 1,989 and also for a command to third respondent to consider and dispose of Ext, P5 (a) appeal along with Ext. P6 (a), P7 (a), etc., within a specified period. After entertaining this writ petition, this court seeing the inexorability of the third respondent issued an interim direction on 27th November 1995 in C. M. P. No. 33506 of 1.995 commanding him to consider and dispose of Ext. P5 (a) appeal within a period of two months. In pursuance of the said order third respondent rejected the appeal on 11th January 1996. Necessarily the said order will have to be produced for effective disposal of this writ petition. The writ petition was consequently amended incorporating the said order passed by the third respondent as Ext. P10. It was an order rejecting the appeal under Regulation.14 of the Regulations, 1971. Ext. P10 order is also sought to be invalidated in this proceeding.