Telangana High Court
The Food Corporation Of India, vs Sri A. Ravi Chandra, on 12 June, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Writ Appeal No.654 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.23913 of 2020 by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri Dr. P. Bhaskara Mohan, learned Standing Counsel for FCI appearing for the appellants and Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that the respondent was working as Manager (Electrical Engineering) with the respondents. While, the respondent was working as Manager (E.E.) during 2013 to August, 2015, he was involved in certain financial irregularities and the disciplinary authority i.e., General Manager had issued a charge memo on 18.09.2015 alleging that three charges were framed against the respondent. The respondent has submitted an explanation denying the charges and not satisfied with the AKS,J & LNA,J ::2:: wa_654_2024 explanation submitted by the respondent, the disciplinary authority ordered a detailed departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 10.09.2018 and held that the charges levelled against the respondent were proved. The disciplinary authority has imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide proceedings, dated 26.10.2020.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants had further contended that as the allegations were levelled against the respondent while he was working as Manager, the General Manager being the competent authority has issued a charge memo to the respondent on 18.09.2015, but the respondent was contending that he was promoted as Assistant General Manager on 18.08.2015 and the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings would be the Executive Director, but not the General Manager. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the respondent was reverted from the post of Assistant General Manager to that of Manager vide proceedings, dated 23.07.2018 and the said reversion orders were challenged by the respondent before the Madras High AKS,J & LNA,J ::3:: wa_654_2024 Court by filing W.P.No.19753 of 2018 and the Madras High Court vide interim order, dated 01.08.2018 was pleased to suspend the reversion order. Subsequently, the appellants have withdrawn the reversion order vide proceedings, dated 03.07.2019. Aggrieved by the said orders of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, the respondent has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.23913 of 2020 and the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition vide order, dated 18.03.2024, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants had further contended that the learned Single Judge has erroneously allowed the writ petition by setting aside the orders of punishment. The learned Single Judge could not have interfered with the orders of punishment, as admittedly, the disciplinary authority has imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect for the proven misconduct in the enquiry. The learned Single Judge has erroneously came to a conclusion that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the incompetent authority i.e., General Manager, as the AKS,J & LNA,J ::4:: wa_654_2024 respondent has committed certain irregularities while he was working as Manager. But the General Manger is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Manager. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the orders of punishment. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that had the respondent indulged in irregularities while working as Assistant General Manager, the competent authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings is Executive Director. Admittedly, in the instant case, the respondent has indulged in irregularities while he was working as Manager. For the Manager post, the disciplinary authority is General Manager, but not the Executive Director, this fact was not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge had mechanically set aside the orders of punishment. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ appeal by setting aside the order, dated 18.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23913 of 2020 and allow the writ appeal.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent had contended that the respondent was promoted as Assistant General Manager on 18.08.2015 AKS,J & LNA,J ::5:: wa_654_2024 and the charge memo was issued by the General Manager on 18.09.2015, which would mean that the charge memo was issued by the incompetent authority for the post of Assistant General Manager. For the Assistant General Manager, the disciplinary authority is the Executive Director, but not the General Manager, this fact was rightly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and rightly set aside the orders.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that the respondent was promoted as Category-I Officer i.e., Assistant General Manager on 18.08.2015. As per Regulation 56 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations of Food Corporation of India (Staff Regulations), 1971, the competent authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings is the Executive Director, but not the General Manager and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority i.e., General Manager is contrary to law and contrary to the said Regulations of F.C.I. The learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the orders of punishment. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is dismissed.
8. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the AKS,J & LNA,J ::6:: wa_654_2024 learned Single Judge was justified in interfering with the orders of punishment as the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the incompetent authority by treating the respondent as category-II Manager post, whereas, the respondent was promoted as Assistant General Manager category-I. It is the Executive Director who must initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the Assistant General Manager (category-I) post, but not the General Manager. The learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Private Limited and others 1 and Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath 2 and relied on several other judgments. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition in favour of the respondent. However, it will not preclude the appellants from initiating the appropriate action against the respondent in terms of the said Regulations of F.C.I.
9. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.
1 (2003) 2 SCC 111 2 (2014) 1 SCC 351 AKS,J & LNA,J ::7:: wa_654_2024
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date : 12.06.2024 prat