MANAGING DIRECTOR THE ROOD CORPORATION OF INDIA 16 20 BARAKHAMBA LANE NEW DELHI 110 001 Vs. O M NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts loading to the writ appeal filed by the Food Corporation of India are as follows. THE 1st respondent before us was the Deputy Manager of the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter called the Corporation). He was originally an employee of the Government of India in the Food Department. After the enactment of the Food Corporation of India Act, the employees who were working in the Food Department of the Government of India were transferred to the Corporation. Accordingly, the 1st respondent was also transferred to the Corporation. On 16-5-1974 he was posted as the Deputy Manager (Shipping) in the Office of the Joint Manager (P0) of the Corporation. He retired from service on superannuation on 11th May, 1975.

(2.) JUST prior to the retirement of the 1st respondent, a memorandum of charge dated 2nd December, 1974 was issued to the 1st respondent by the Managing Director of the Corporation. The said memo stated that while the 1st respondent was functioning as Senior Assistant Manager had put up false and misleading notes and caused seven road movement orders to be passed by the Deputy Zonal Manager resulting in loss to the Corporation and the Government of India. By this, he had contravened Regulations 31 and 32 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations. The memo further stated that it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him as provided for under Regulation 58. It was only after this the 1st respondent was retired on 11-5-1975 as aforesaid. On 5th July, 1975, a memorandum was issued to the 1st respondent informing him that one J.S.Arora, Senior Regional Manager of the Corporation and one A.Viswanathan, Inspector, Special Police Establishment to present the case of the Corporation against the 1st respondent before the Inquiring Authority. The 1st respondent thereupon on 24-7-1975 wrote a letter objecting to the conduct of the enquiry on the ground that inasmuch as he had retired from the service of the Corporation by superannuation, he ceased to be an employee of the Corporation and consequently no enquiry could be held against him. The first respondent further sent various letters to the appellant objecting to the proposed enquiry. Finally, a memo dated 9th September, 1977 was received from the Corporation stating that as the 1st respondent had not made any valid ground for dropping the enquiry, he was called upon to participate in the enquiry. It was in those circumstances the 1st respondent filed a writ petition for the issue of certiorari to quash the memo dated 2nd December, 1974, issued by the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the Corporation that the 1st respondent having exercised the option to be governed by the pension rules with regard to (1) Leave (2) Provident Fund (3) Retirement and (4) other terminal benefits in accordance with the rules and orders of the Central Government, as amended from time to time, he is liable to be proceeded against under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. The learned single Judge, Padmanabhan, J. was of the view that by this option it only meant the benefits available to the employees of the Corporation and not the disadvantages, like the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings beyond retirement. The further ground which prevailed with the learned single Judge was it was not the President of India who had taken the action. Lastly it was held that inasmuch as the first respondent had been allowed to retire on 11-5-1975 without any reservation for continuing the enquiry against him, the order could not be supported. For all these reasons, he made the rule absolute and allowed the writ petition. It is against this, the present appeal has been preferred by the Managing Director of the Corporation.

(3.) IN opposing this submission, Mr.G.Ramaswami, learned counsel for the 1st respondent urges first and foremost that the Food Corporation of INdia (Staff) Regulations do not provide for a similar rule as Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. When section 12-A (4)(b) of the Food Corporation of INdia Act specifically provides for exercise of an option, it merely means the option is exercised so as to get these benefits like leave, provident fund, retirement and other terminal benefits. By that option, rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules does not get attracted. Therefore, where such a rule as rule 9 was not provided for in the Staff Regulations, it is impossible to conceive that this rule will get incorporated by reason of the option. This is because if that were the position, the 1st respondent would not have opted at all and put himself to a detriment. Besides, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, it is only the benefits available under the Pension Rules that were opted for and not the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings. IN any event, inasmuch as without any reservation or qualification the first respondent was retired on 11-5-1975 no proceeding could be continued under Rule 9, unless it has been so specifically stated.