High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 7593/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. I. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. K. Roy , learned standing counsel FCI. The petitioner is aggrieved by the penalty that has been imposed on him pursuant to a Departmental Proceeding. The penalty imposed is reduction in rank and that too in the minimum of the basic pay in the lower post till retirement f rom service (30.09.2008). The penalty was imposed vide order dated 27.02.2004. The petitioner while serving as Assistant Manager, a Departmental Procee ding was initiated vide a memorandum of charge, dated 29.08.2002, which was issu ed levelling the charge in connivance with unknown private persons by way of acc epting fixious allotment orders. The misconduct attributed to the petitioner was that of negligence in not verifying the genuinity of the allotment orders. Pursuant to the Departmental Proceeding conducted through the Inquiry Of ficer, it was found that the Charge No.1 stood fully established and the Charge No.2 stood established to the extent indicated in the Inquiry Report. Pursuant to such findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplin ary Authority, by its order dated 27.02.2004 (Anexure-4) imposed the aforesaid p enalty of reduction to minimum basic pay in the lower post of AG-1 till the reti rement of the petitioner from service on 30.09.2008. Thus the petitioner had to remain in the lower post that too in the minimum of the basic pay of the said po st for the period from 27.02.2004 to till he retired on 30.09.2008. Mr. I. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since it w as a case of collective responsibility and approved by the District Manager in r espect of the purported fictitious allotment orders, no misconduct could have be en attributed to the petitioner. In this connection he has specifically referred to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer (Page 64) of the writ petition. As per the said finding, the commerce section of the FCI Regional Office, Guwah ati should have detected the fraud at the initial stage. However, it has also be en held in the inquiry report that non detection by the commerce section of the FCI Regional Office, Guwahati cannot lead to the interference that the petitione r was not associated with the particular deal. Further finding recorded by the I ncuiry Officer is that although all the release orders were ordered on approval of the then District Manager the same cannot rescue the petitioner from the misc onduct attributed to him. In G.C.Sarma Vs BRPL reported in 2006 (1) GLT 235 the Division Bench of this Court held that in case of collective decision, a particular Officer alone cannot be picked up for a particular misconduct. It is not the case of the respo ndent FCI that the petitioner had played the decisive role in the matter. This j udgement has upheld by the Apex Court on appeal As noted above, it is the definite finding of the Inquiry Officer that the Commerce Section of the FCI Regional Office, Guwahati should have detected t he fraud at the initial stage. It has also been recorded by him that the purpote d fixious allotment orders were issued with the approval of the then District Ma nager. Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel FCI was requested to obtain ins truction as to what action the Disciplinary Authority has taken against the said officials. In this connection he has produced the letter dated 19.04.2004 showi ng that three officers in the rank of Area Manager and Manager respectively have been imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement and removal from service . However, the details of their misconduct attributed to them are not before thi s Court. Further, there is also no instruction as to what action was taken again st the then District Manager, who had approved the release orders. Further if th e Commerce Section of the FCI Regional Office, Guwahati is responsible in detect ing the fraud at the initial stage the authority ought to have taken up Departme ntal action against the officials of the said section. However, the letter does not disclose anything about the same. Irrespective of the aforesaid position, the petitioner cannot be absolve d of the charge altogether. Although, there is no pinpointed allegation against the petitioner but he cannot be absolved of the collective responsibility. Howev er, at the same time and as submitted by Mr. I. Ahmed, learned counsel for the p etitioner, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have considered as to whether the punishment imposed was excessive. As per the provision of Rule 54 of the Depart mental Proceeding Rule, the Disciplinary Authority can impose major penalty of r eduction to a lower stage in the timescale of pay for a specified period. It can also impose the penalty of mere reduction to a lower timescale of pay or post w hich would ordinarily be a bar for promotion of the employee. One of the minor p enalties is that of reduction to a lower stage in the timescale of pay for a per iod not exceeding three years without cumulative effect and without affecting th e pension of the employee. In the instant case the petitioner has not only been demoted to the lowe r post but he has also been relegated released to the initial timescale pay of t he lower post. Thus, the petitioner not only has been robbed off his promotional post but has also been robbed off his entitlement of timescale of pay in the lo wer post by reducing him to the minimum of the timescale of pay in the lower pos t.
Decision
In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the Disciplina ry Authority is required to look into the above aspect of the matter by finding out as to whether the petitioner can be imposed with any lesser penalty retainin g him in the promotional post of Assistant Lecturer itself for a specified perio d. Let a speaking order be passed in this regard as expeditiously as possible pr eferably within two month. It is expected that the Disciplinary Authority would take a pragmatic ap proach in the matter by retaining the petitioner in his promotional post of Assi stant Manager considering the fact that by the time the penalty was imposed his retirement was approaching and in the meantime he has retired from service. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.