S.K.Jain v. Food Corporation of India & Ors.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.S.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.-

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 25.8.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby a penalty of recovery of Rs.80,000/- has been imposed upon him and which has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30/31.12.2009 (Annexure P-8). The petitioner is serving as Assistant Grade-I (D) in the respondent-Corporation. He alongwith two other Assistants Grade-I & II was charge-sheeted vide memo dated 7.1.2009 (Annexure P-4), inter-alia, alleging that while working as such at FSD, Talwandi Bhai-II Centre of District Ferozepur during the crop years 1992-94 & 1994-95, they did not discharge their duties with absolute integrity and due devotion and that C.W.P.No .16413 of 2010 2 while they were responsible for receipt, storage and issue of rice-stocks, huge quantum of storage loss has been detected, the details of which are duly mentioned in the charge-sheet. The petitioner alongwith his co- delinquent employees having been found guilty, was served with a show cause notice and in response thereto, the petitioner took the following plea before the Disciplinary Authority, as has been noticed in the impugned order:- “.......Sh.S.K.Jain, A.G.I.(D) has stated that he had taken over the charge from S/Shri P.L.Shergil, A.G.I.(D), D.S.Brar, A.G.II (D) and Sh.Ashok Malhotra, AG.II (D) during 02/1995 and most of the stocks were received by his predecessors. The CO has further stated that losses of B anc C shed only pertain to him. The CO has further stated that the rice of crop year 1992-93 was substandard and was issued in the presence of three officers committee...” The Disciplinary Authority duly considered and turned down the said contentions after returning the following finding of fact:- “.........The arguments of Sh.S.K.Jain that trend of losses prior to 1994-95 in the rice stocks of FSD Talwandi Bhai was higher which were issued in the presence of committee were mixed in the storage loss of 1994-95 and 1995-96 due to which higher storage losses were assessed, is unfounded when read with entries available in Storage Loss statements, wherein entries of rice stocks accepted during 1994 and thereafter have been depicted. Similarly, plea of the CO that he is responsible for losses only in respect of two sheds is not on sound footing, his name is appearing in the SLS, which has been signed and confirmed by his supervisory officer.......” The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of recovery of Rs.80,000/- on the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal in which he re-iterated the same contention as noticed by the Appellate C.W.P.No .16413 of 2010 3 Authority in the following manner:- “.........And whereas, the undersigned has gone through the contents of charge-sheet, the penalty order, the appeal of the appellant and other related records of the case in a careful manner. The appellant has mainly contended that (1) He remained at Talwandi Bhai w.e.f. 11/94 to 2.8.1997 and he was holding the charge of B & C shed only which was called as Kuljindera-II Depot. The charge of these sheeds were taken from S/Shri P.L.Shergill, AG-I (D), D.S.Brar, AG-II (D) and Ashok Malhotra, AG-II (D); (ii) During 8/96 when the referred storage loss was occurred, Shri Som Nath, AG-II (D) was working as joint custodian with him whose name has not been shown in the storage loss statement (iii) Sh.Paramjit Singh AG-II (D) who has been shown responsible for the storage loss of 151-10-000 Qtls stg. Loss has never worked out in A&D shed who worked with him as joint custodian of B&C shed upto 08/1995.....” The Appellate Authority also rejected the aforesaid contention and held as follows:- “.......As per attested copy of certificate attached by the appellant with his appeal, Shri S.K.Jain AG-I (D) took over complete charge of food grain, gunnies, dead stock and office record in respect of Kuljindra-II Unit from Shri Paramjit Singh, AG-II (D). (ii) As per certificate dated 11.9.2009, issued as per record by M(d), FCI, FSD, Talwandi Bhai, Shri S.K.Jain AG-I (D) remained posted at Talwandi Bhai during 11/94 to 2.8.1997 and he was holding the charge of shed No.B & C at Kuljindra ARDC godowns with Shri Som Nath, AG-II (D) as joint custodian. From the date of issue of referred certificate, it reveals that the certificate attached by appellant with his appeal has been obtained by him after imposing penalty by Disciplinary Authority. Copy of this certificate is not available in the record file or RO Punjab. Name of Shri Som Nath, AG-II (D) is not mentioned on Stg. Loss statement for the month 08/96 i.r.o. Talwandi Bhai-II. Whereas name of Shri S.K.Jain, AG-I (D) found mentioned on it. (iii) Shri Paramjit Singh AG-II (D) handed over the complete charge of B & C shed at Kuljindra ARDC Talwandi Bhai centre to C.W.P.No .16413 of 2010 4 Shri S.K.Jain on 14.8.1995 as such Shri Paramjit Singh AG-II (D) appeared to be not posted at Kuljindra-II during 08/96 i.e., at the time of liquidation of stocks but the stocks wherein stg. Loss of 151-30-000 qtls has been observed were received from 16.12.1994 to 10.1.1995 when Shri Paramjit Singh AG-II (D) was holding the charge of stocks, so his name has been mentioned on the storage loss statement. Not only this, but the name of Shri S.K.Jain, AG-I (D) has also been mentioned by regional office committee in his report i.r.o. of storage loss during 08/96. Keeping in view the above facts, the contentions of the appellant are devoid of merits and his appeal is liable for rejection......” It may, thus, be seen that both the authorities have concurrently held that besides Shed Nos.B & C, the petitioner was also incharge and responsible for the storage at Shed Nos.A & D, may be partly. The same contention has been raised by the petitioner before this Court as well. Suffice it to observe that the certificate sought to be relied upon by the petitioner before the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in support of his contention that he was holding the charge of shed Nos.B & C only, has not been found worth reliance as neither its copy was available in the record nor such a certificate was relied upon by the petitioner during the course of enquiry. No case to interfere with the impugned orders by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. September 14, 2010 Mohinder (SURYA KANT) JUDGE