DEEPAK LAXMAN SARNOBAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON June 1, 1966, the petitioner was appointed as Godown Clerk by Regional Director (Food), Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India. The petitioner was posted to work under Assistant Director (Food) at Borivali, Bombay, On incorporation of Food Corporation of India which was established by an Act of Parliament, the functions of Regional Director (Food) were taken over by the Corporation. The services of the petitioner was transferred to the Corporation with effect from transferred to the Corporation with effect from March 1, 1969 and the petitioner was given the post of Assistant Grade III (Depot). From April 1, 1972, the petitioner was working as Assistant Grade II (Depot) and was transferred from Madhya Pradesh to Bombay Docks. The petitioner was thereafter working at several units under district Manages, City Godowns.

(2.) BY order dated April 3, 1982, the petitioner was placed under suspension in exercise of powers conferred by sub -regulation 5(c) of Regulation 66 of Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971. The petitioner was served with a charge -sheet on November 29, 1982. The charge against the petitioner was that petitioner while functioning as Assistant Grade II (Depot) in Weigh Bridge, Sewri, recorded the weight of deliveries of wheat to M/s Wallace Flour Mills abnormally less on several occasions during January 1, 1981 and August 18, 1981. The statement of Articles of charges further recites that the petitioner failed to bring the instance of abnormal variations in weight to the notice of the superior authorities and thereby caused huge loss to the Corporation. Along with the petitioner, three other employees - Tambe, Nayak and Arunraj who were working at he Weight Bridge, were also charge -sheeted. Tambe an Nayak were working as Assistant Grade II, while Arunraj was holding the post of Assistant Grade I. One Vachhaney was superior to these four employees and he was also charge -sheeted. As regards Vachhaney is concerned, Shri Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 5, stated that he was found guilty of the charges and was removed from service.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority were in error in holding that the charges against the delinquents were established. The learned counsel was desirous of referring to the enquiry proceedings and the statements recorded. It is not possible to accede to the submissions of the learned counsel. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the charges against the delinquents were proved and it is not permissible to disturb the finding of fact in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Disciplinary Authority had ample material in the shape of entries made by the delinquent in the Weigh Bridge Register to come to the conclusion that the charge that deliberately record was manoeuvred to show that the quantity supplied to M/s. Wallace Flour Mills was less. In our judgment, it is not permissible to disturb the finding of the Disciplinary Authority that delinquent was guilty of charges levelled.