BABBAN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(3.) The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was an employee of Food Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation') and was initially appointed as an Assistant Grade-III (Depot) on 16/1/1978. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II (Depot) on 2/9/1998 and further promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I (Depot) on 19/2/2005. The petitioner superannuated from service on 31/1/2013. While the petitioner was posted in the district office of Corporation at Muzaffarpur, a memorandum was served upon him on 6/5/2006 for certain irregularities committed by the petitioner and it was proposed to hold an enquiry in terms of Rule 58 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971. Pursuant to the said memorandum, the petitioner submitted his defence brief (statement) before the Enquiry Officer on 22/11/2006, requesting him to exonerate the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. The enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry and after conclusion of the enquiry, submitted his enquiry report, before the disciplinary authority on 25/11/2006. Second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which he replied on 15/12/2006, however without even considering the reply to the second show cause notice, submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority i.e. G.M. (Region), Regional Office, FCI, Patna vide impugned order issued vide Ref. No. vig.3(934)/2005 dtd. 29/9/2007 proceeded to award punishment, in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 56 and Appendix-II r/w Regulation-54 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971, whereby he imposed the penalty of reduction to a lower post of AG-II (D) fixing his pay at the initial stage of the pay scale of AG-II(D) and recovery of Rs.3,00,000.00 from the petitioner. It was further ordered that recovery will be made from his salary, not exceeding 1/3 of his pay and remaining amount will be recovered from the permissible terminal benefits of his retirement with a further direction that he will earn normal increment in the reduced post in accordance with the existing rule and his seniority to be counted from the date of this penalty order. It was further ordered that the penalty will be effective from the date of the order and the period of suspension as per the order issued by this office dtd. 14/10/2005 and revocation order issued on 6/5/2006 will be treated as not spent on duty and the petitioner will not get any amount against the period of suspension, except the subsistence allowance, already paid to him. Being aggrieved with the order of punishment dtd. 29/9/2007, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the appellate authority on 21/11/2007, wherein he stated that no evidence was found against him and he has not committed any misconduct, even then the enquiry officer by ignoring the evidence and the materials available on record, proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The appellate authority without even examining the points raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal, proceeded to reject the appeal of the petitioner, vide his order dtd. 12/1/2009. Being aggrieved with the order dtd. 12/1/2009 passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred review petition on 17/3/2009, for review of the order dtd. 12/1/2009, whereby his appeal was rejected. When no order was passed on the review preferred by the petitioner, he submitted a detailed representation on 18/5/2012, with a request to take a decision on his review petition, since the petitioner was on verge of retirement and he was suffering with economical loss and mental harassment, but no action was taken by the authorities concerned. The petitioner, having no other alternative remedy, filed a writ petition which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 14484 of 2012. The writ petition was heard by a Hon'ble Single Judge and after hearing the parties, the same was disposed of vide order dtd. 9/8/2012, with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Managing Director of the Corporation along with a copy of the order and the Managing Director of the Corporation was directed to consider the same in accordance with law and to decide the same by a speaking order within the period of three months thereafter. Pursuant to the order dtd. 9/8/2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14484 of 2012, the petitioner filed a representation on 17/8/2012 along with the copy of the review petition dtd. 17/3/2009 and the order dtd. 9/8/2012, with a request to take decision on the matter within three month's period, fixed by the Hon'ble Court. The Managing Director vide his order bearing no. A & R/10 (47) 2009 dtd. 13/12/2012 dismissed the review petition preferred by the petition.