UTPAL CHOWDHRY Vs. FOOD CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the decisions of the corporation rejecting his application for voluntary retirement. The scheme, introduced by notification dated June 29, 2004, was titled

(2.) THE petitioner submitted his application on July 6, 2004, that is, within the period stipulated in the scheme. His application was rejected on November 3, 2004. He submitted an application dated November 28, 2004 seeking review of the decision. Treating that application as a fresh application, the competent authority rejected that on December 14, 2004. One Monotosh Roy, another officer of the corporation, also applied for voluntary retirement in terms of provisions of the scheme. His application was also rejected on November 3, 2004. Curiously he applied for review of the decision by submitting an application dated october 14, 2004. By order dated November 29, 2004 his review application was allowed, and he was granted voluntary retirement. The case of Monotosh has an important relation to the petitioner's case, and that is this. Both of them with five other officers and employees of the corporation were proceeded against. Seven charge-sheets all dated april 18, 2001 had been issued against them; a joint inquiry was conducted by the duly appointed inquiry officer. They all participated in the inquiry. The inquiry officer submitted his report on April 28, 2004. He recorded the findings that charges levelled against the petitioner had not been established. He, however, recorded that charges levelled against Monotosh had been proved.

(3.) THE disciplinary authority issued a notice dated April 30, 2004 calling upon the petitioner to submit his comments on the findings recorded by the inquiry officer. He did not disagree with the inquiry officer, and he did not either propose to impose any punishment. On receipt of the notice the petitioner submitted his reply dated June 1, 2004. The final decision exonerating him was, however, given by the disciplinary authority only on January 25, 2005. In the case of manotosh, however, the disciplinary authority agreed with the inquiry officer and imposed punishment. Since application submitted by the petitioner was rejected, and since the authorities did not respond to his legal notice demanding justice, he took out this writ petition. In his legal notice he specifically stated that his application seeking voluntary retirement had been rejected without assigning any reason. He also requested the authorities to accept his application with effect from the date he was entitled to go on voluntary retirement in terms of provisions of the scheme. The respondents are contesting the case. They have filed an opposition. In the opposition for the first time they have stated that the petitioner's application was rejected in terms of provisions in paras. IV. 3 (ii) and VIII. (b) of the scheme.