LAWS(GAU)-2007-3-51

BIPIN RAJBONGSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On March 28, 2007
BIPIN RAJBONGSHI Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order dated 18/29. 5. 2002 imposing the penalty of recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 from the monthly salary of the petitioner has been assailed in this writ petition.

(2.) THE brief facts may be noticed at this stage. At the relevant point of time the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Grade-II and he was posted in Shed No. 3/4 of the Food Storage Depot of the Food Corporation of India in Beltola within the City of Guwahati. By a memorandum dated 6. 9. 2001 the petitioner was informed that his disciplinary authority was proposing to take action against him under regulation 60 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff Regulations), 1971 ('the Regulations) on account of certain omissions and commissions, details of which were appended to the aforesaid memorandum dated 6. 9. 2001. The petitioner was given an opportunity to submit a representation against the action that was proposed to be taken. The essence of the charge against the petitioner is one of negligence of duty leading to shortage of URS rice beyond the permissible percentage of loss resulting in pecuniary loss to the Corporation.

(3.) ON receipt of the aforesaid memorandum dated 6. 9. 2001 the petitioner submitted his reply on 20. 9. 2001. In the said reply the petitioner contended that the Depot in which he was working was under the control of the Depot In-charge and the petitioner merely functioned under the direct control and guidance of the Depot In-charge. In the reply submitted, the petitioner had further contended that, from time to time, the authorities of the Food Corporation of India were informed of the necessity of ensuring supply of quality control equipments and medicine to avoid deterioration of stocks" which requests wont unheeded. Consequently, the food grains in question got damaged infected resulting in high percentage of loss or which the petitioner was in no way responsible. In the aforesaid facts, the petitioner submitted that he should be exonerated of the charge levelled by the memorandum dated 6. 9. 2001.