FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI Vs. BALDEV SINGH, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT GRADE-II, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Baldev Singh was employed as Technical Assistant Grade I in the Food Corporation of India. He was suspended on 3.6.1982. From Patran he was transferred to Gurdaspur and was directed to report there. He did not join at Gurdaspur for a long time and ultimately reported for duty only on 11.5.1983. He was charge-sheeted for his remaining absent from his head- quarter for that period. A regular enquiry was held. Enquiry report was submitted. Vide order dated 10.9.1985, Ex. P-1 Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, reduced him in rank from the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I to Technical Assistant Grade-II with effect from the date of issuance of the order and the period of his absence from the headquarter during the suspension was ordered to be treated as leave withput pay. He challenged the said order and the enquiry proceedings by filing civil suit No. 54-T of 1989 instituted on 25.10.1986 on various grounds. The suit was contested on behalf of the respondents. It was, however, dismissed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Samana vide his judgment and decree dated 28.8.1989. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred civil appeal No. 296-T of 24.10.1989/91 which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide his judgment and decree dated 5.9.1982. The Food Corporation of India and others, respondents have challenged the above said judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court in this Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) Sole argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal on the ground that copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the plaintiff before passing the impugned order and that, therefore, he was not afforded an opportunity to make representation against the report of the Inquiry Officer. It was further submitted that the First Appellate Court has wrongly applied the ratio laid down in Civil Writ Petition No. 3491 of 1986 (Lal Chand Vs. State of Haryana and others) . Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1991(1) SLR 159 : 1991(1) SCT 111 (SC) : (AIR 1991 SC 471) in the instant case because the order of punishment having been passed prior to the delivery of the judgment in Mohd. Ramzan's case (supra), the ratio laid down in the said Supreme Court case would not be applicable herein.

(3.) In reply, learned counsel for the respondents has argned that since a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner, the order of termination is vitiated. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd Ramzan's case.