Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date Of Decision: May 10, 2018
+ WP (C) 3388/2007
OM HARI SIROHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manmoan and Mr. Rajiv
Ranjan Pandey, Advocates
versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Petitioner, while being posted as Technical Assistant (Grade-1) in
Food Storage Depot, Mansa, during the years 1998-1999 & 1999-2000,
was departmentally tried on the following charge: -
“He accepted BRL Rice Raw Gr.A(URS) stocks
during Crop year 1998-99 and that 25125 bags
were dispatched on 4/5.10.99 Ex-Mansa to
Bilaspur(MP). The said stock was
unloaded/received at destination on 9.10.99 which
was found BRL in respect of broken dehusked and
foreign matter which fetched the quality
complaint, and he caused the financial loss of
WP(C) 3388/2007 Page 1 of 5
Rs.28,38,451.20 on account of quality cuts. He
issued the priority of BRL RR Gr.A stocks
knowingly to hide his misconduct. He deliberately
avoided to avail the opportunity of joint
inspection.
Thus said Shri O.H. Sirohi, TA.I contravened the
Regulation, 31, 32 read with 32(A) of FCR (Staff)
Regulations, 1977”
th
2. The Disciplinary Authority vide order of 14 February, 2005
(Annexure P-7), accepted the Inquiry Officer’s report. He has inflicted
the penalty of compulsory retirement upon petitioner which was
unsuccessfully challenged by him, by way of a statutory appeal. Review
th
sought by petitioner stands declined vide impugned order of 12 July,
2006 (Annexure P-11). The operative portion of the Review Order reads
as under:-
“On going through the Review Petition of Shri
O.H. Sirohi, Ex. T.A. II and other relate records
of the case, it is observed that the petitioner was
charged for acceptance/dispatch of BR Rice
stocks in special Ex. Mansa to Bilaspur (M.P.)
during October, 1999 which invited a quality
complaint and LAS of Rs. 28.38 Lacs from the
consignee. He was afforded an opportunity of
joint inspection of stocks under complaint at the
destination, but he deliberately did not avail of the
same as he knew that stocks accepted by him were
not conforming to laid down specifications of URS
Rice. The purpose of procurement and dispatch
of stocks to consuming State/Region to meet the
requirement of PDS was thus defeated, besides
incurring huge transportation and handling
expenses by FCI and the stocks ultimately had
WP(C) 3388/2007 Page 2 of 5
been disposed of through tender sale. The
contentions now reiterated by the petitioner have
already been examined by the Disciplinary and
Appellate Authorities. Besides, there is no other
reason to differ with the orders passed by the
above authorities and the Review Petition which
is devoid of any merit is liable for rejection.”
3. The challenge to order of the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate
Order and Review Order by petitioner’s counsel is on the ground that in
the absence of any documentary evidence to show as to how much
quantity of rice stocks were accepted by petitioner, it is not proper to
make petitioner accountable for the reported quality deficit. It is pointed
out that if any stock accepted by petitioner was of inferior quality, then
the said stock should not have been included in the priority list. It is
submitted on behalf of petitioner that during the span of five days, only
limited consignments were accepted by him as he stood relieved from
th
Mansa centre on 10 August, 1989 and so, petitioner should not be made
answerable for the entire quality deficit. It is submitted by petitioner’s
counsel that petitioner has not supervised the loading of rice and its
dispatch.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was not
called for joint inspection and to submit so, attention of this Court is
rd th
drawn to a Communication of 3 /5 August, 2000 (Annexure P-6).
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the defence brief (Annexure
P-4 Colly) has not been considered by the authorities concerned and so,
the impugned penalty deserves to be set aside.
WP(C) 3388/2007 Page 3 of 5
5. Learned counsel for respondent-FCI submits that impugned orders
are well-reasoned and so, this petition deserves dismissal.
6. Upon hearing, on perusal of impugned orders and the material on
record, I find that in matters of disciplinary proceedings, this Court in
exercise of its powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India cannot venture into re-appreciation of evidence or interfere with the
conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer and this Court cannot go into
reliability and adequacy of evidence in order to correct the errors of fact.
What is required to be considered is whether the inquiry was held by the
competent authority in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice
and the established procedure and if there was any exclusion of
admissible evidence, which could render the orders impugned vulnerable.
All that which is required to be seen is whether the findings of concerned
authorities in the impugned orders are arbitrary, capricious or are based
on no evidence. In the instant case, a complaint was received regarding
financial loss of ` 28 lacs odd due to dispatch of sub-standard rice from
the Mansa Centre and the said complaint was investigated. Upon
inspection of the stock, it was found that the complaint made was
genuine. A memo was issued to petitioner and an opportunity of hearing
was also granted to petitioner. Even if, adverse inference is not drawn
against petitioner on account of his non-participation in the joint
inspection, still, in the face of evidence on record, the findings returned
against petitioner cannot be faulted with.
7. The submissions made by petitioner’s counsel to persuade this
Court to take a contrary view, lacks substance as the Inquiry Officer has
WP(C) 3388/2007 Page 4 of 5
aptly analyzed the evidence on record and rightly holds petitioner guilty
of the charge framed against him. Even at the Appellate stage, petitioner
was provided opportunity of hearing.
8. The reviewing authority in the impugned order (Annexure P-11)
has rightly not interfered with the orders of disciplinary and appellate
authorities as the penalty inflicted upon petitioner is commensurate with
the misconduct committed by him.
9. Without delving deep into the merits of the case, this Court finds
that the impugned orders neither suffers from vice of arbitrariness nor it
can be said that the impugned orders are capricious. The punishment
inflicted upon petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate. Hence, I
find no justification to interfere with the impugned orders.
10. Consequentially, this petition deserves dismissal and accordingly,
it is dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 10, 2018
s/ p
WP(C) 3388/2007 Page 5 of 5