BABUN RAHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was found to be involved in a massive heist of stocks from the Food Corporation of India sheds over a period amounting to a sum in excess of Rs.8 crore. Several officials at different levels were charged by a common chargesheet of April 22, 2013. The petitioner complains of the arbitrary punishment of the petitioner's dismissal from service by an order of February 27, 2015 which has been affirmed in appeal on February 3, 2016.

(2.) The chargesheet of April 22, 2013 covered 18 officials from a manager to head -watchmen. It was alleged in the chargesheet that all the officials in connivance with the then depot officer at the FCI godowns in Budge Budge had misappropriated foodgrain stocks from depot and the sheds to the extent of 29,533.58 q of wheat, 10,858.50 q of Rice and 18,144 pieces of gunny bags valued at Rs.8,37,63,029/ -. It was alleged that the several persons named in the chargesheet, including the petitioner, had the goods under their custody or in trust and had wrongfully misappropriated the same. A common inquiry was conducted into the acts complained of against the several employees. The inquiry report concluded, in so far as it is relevant for the present petitioner, that since there was a shortage in the quantum of the foodgrain stock and several officers, including the petitioner herein, were entrusted with the duty of protecting the same, the shortage had to be held to be on account of the charged employees, including the petitioner herein.

(3.) The first charge was found to have been partly proved against, inter alia, the petitioner herein of the goods being removed in connivance with the depot officer. Though the inquiry report was forwarded to the relevant Area Manager on January 5, 2015 for circulation to all of the charged employees, and the petitioner appears to have a copy of the inquiry report and the covering letter of January 5, 2015, the petitioner made no representation against the adverse findings rendered in the inquiry report against the petitioner before the disciplinary authority.