Delhi High Court
Mohan Lal Sharma vs Food Corp. Of India on 3 August, 2004
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Rule.
With the consent of parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.
2.The petitioner moved the Civil Misc. application bearing No.2616/2004 for quashing of the respondent's Board Resolution dated 7.11.2001 in respect of item No.73 of 2001 as communicated vide order dated 5.12.2001. The petitioner had preferred a review which is in the nature of an appeal under Regulation 74 of the Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations against the order dated 19.6.2001.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that his review application has been dealt with by Shri Jai Singh Gill, the then Managing Director of the Corporation as Disciplinary Authority and Shri Bhure Lal the then Chairman as the Appellate Authority. He submitted that the review petition which is in the nature of second appeal had been dealt with by the Board of Directors of the Corporation which was presided over by the Chairman and Shri Jai Singh Gill, the Managing Director was also a member.
4.The petitioner places reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Amar Nath Chowdhury Vs. Braithwaite And Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported as in support of his contention that it was not permissible for the said persons to have acted as the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. Fair play demanded that they should not have participated in the Board meeting.
5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied if the Resolution dated 7.11.2001 is set aside and respondents are directed to consider afresh the review application of the petitioners. It is stated that former Chairman and Shri Jai Singh Gill, former Managing Director are no longer in service with the Corporation and as such there should be no difficulty in the Board being presided over by the new Chairman and the Managing Director for considering the review application
6. Mr.Jagat Singh, counsel for the respondent vehemently objects to the petitioner being allowed reconsideration of the review on the ground that there is no provision in the Regulation.
7. I am afraid that this plea is devoid of merit. The review order stands vitiated as having been carried out by the Board being constituted of persons who had acted as Disciplinary and Appellate authority. Accordingly the said decision stands vitiated on this count in terms of judgment in Amar Nath Chowdhury's case (Supra). The impugned resolution dated 7.11.2001 is set aside. Respondents are directed to consider afresh, by duly constituted Board of Directors, the review application of the petitioner and a decision on the same be taken within eight weeks. In case the petitioner still has any grievance left after the matter is considered by the Board, it would be open for him to avail of his remedy and raise pleas as are admissible at law. Petitioner also prays for grant of personal hearing by the Board. Counsel for the respondent has no objection to the same.
The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.
