Lakhwinder Singh vs The Food Corporation Of India
2016 Latest Caselaw 2907 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            Review Petition No.256/2015 in W.P.(C) No.1628/2005

%                                                    22nd April, 2016

LAKHWINDER SINGH                                           ..... Petitioner

                          Through:       Mr. Pardeep Gupta and Ms.
                                         Mansi Ajmani, Advocates.

                          versus

THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA                        ..... Respondent

                          Through:       Mr. Manoj, standing counsel for
                                         FCI with Ms. Aparna Sinha,
                                         Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

Review Petition No. 256/2015 (for recalling of Judgment dated
12.3.2015)
1.           This is a review petition filed by the petitioner seeking

review of the Judgment dated 12.3.2015 dismissing the writ petition.


2.           The main writ petition was filed by the petitioner

challenging the orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 22.12.2001;

the Appellate Authority dated 3/5.12.2002 and the Reviewing Authority

dated 12.7.2004, whereby penalty was imposed upon the petitioner of


RP No.256/2015 in W.P.(C) No.1628/2005                                     Page 1 of 6
 reduction to the lower time scale of pay i.e from the post of AG-II(D) to

AG-III(D) for a period of two years with a further direction that his pay

will be fixed at the stage of AG-III(D) as if he would not have been

promoted to the post of AG-II(D).


3.           This review petition is predicated and argued before this

Court on the following two grounds:-


(i)          There were six other charge-sheets against the petitioner

with respect to the same period of 1997-1999 where the issue came up

as to whether the petitioner was or was not the joint custodian of the

stocks at Amargarh during this period while otherwise being mainly

posted at Malerkotla, Punjab, and that all these enquiry reports have

exonerated the petitioner by giving a finding that petitioner was neither

posted nor was a joint custodian of the paddy stocks at Amargarh.

Accordingly, it is argued that petitioner having been exonerated on the

same issue in other enquiry proceedings, petitioner therefore should be

exonerated from the charges as per the present charge-sheet also

wherein the same issue is there of the petitioner being or not being the

joint custodian of the stocks at Amargarh.


(ii)   This Court while passing the Judgment dismissing the writ

petition on 12.3.2015 has held that Annexures P-3 to P-6 of the writ


RP No.256/2015 in W.P.(C) No.1628/2005                                 Page 2 of 6
 petition were not filed before the Enquiry Officer whereas the

respondent in its counter-affidavit para 3(iv) admits that these

documents were indeed filed by the petitioner before the Enquiry

Officer.


4.           So far as the first ground is concerned that petitioner has

been exonerated in six other enquiry reports, it is to be noted that

petitioner was exonerated in those enquiry proceedings as per the

evidence which was led and existed on the record of those cases. I have

gone through the enquiry reports in the said cases and which have been

filed by the respondents pursuant to the directions issued by this Court

in the review petition. A reference to those enquiry reports does show

that petitioner was exonerated because FCI/employer in those cases

failed to lead evidence to rebut the case of the charged

official/petitioner in this case, that, petitioner was not posted at

Amargarh and was also not the joint custodian of the stocks at

Amargarh. Accordingly, in the earlier enquiry reports petitioner was

exonerated on account of failure of the employer/respondents to lead

necessary evidence of the petitioner being the joint custodian of the

stocks at Amargarh. However, in the present case, the Enquiry Officer

has referred to the statement of the petitioner recorded in the subject

enquiry proceedings wherein the petitioner himself has admitted that he

RP No.256/2015 in W.P.(C) No.1628/2005                                Page 3 of 6
 was deployed at Amargarh from September, 1997 to January, 1999 in

addition to his duties at FSD-I Malerkotla Unit. Also, in the cross-

examination of the petitioner in enquiry proceeding on 10.9.2001,

petitioner has categorically admitted that he was posted at Amargarh on

the verbal orders of DM, FCI, Sangrur. Enquiry Officer has referred to

these admissions of the petitioner and documents in his report and

which findings of the Enquiry Officer are referred to by this Court at

the end of para 4 of the impugned Judgment dated 12.3.2015.

Therefore, in my opinion, no ground is made out for review because

each enquiry proceeding is decided as per the evidence led in that

enquiry proceeding, and in the present enquiry proceeding there is a

finding against the petitioner on account of admissions by the petitioner

that he was in fact posted at Amargarh and he was therefore in-charge

of the stocks at Amargarh, and which relevant findings of the Enquiry

Officer's report, as already stated above, have been reproduced at the

end of para 4 of the impugned Judgment dated 12.3.2015. There is

therefore no ground for review of the Judgment dated 12.3.2015 for

exonerating the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was exonerated

in six other enquiry proceedings.


5.           So far as the second ground of this Court observing that

Annexures P-3 to P-6 were not filed by the petitioner in the enquiry

RP No.256/2015 in W.P.(C) No.1628/2005                                 Page 4 of 6
 proceedings, and for which purpose reference is invited to para 3(iv) of

the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in this case, wherein it is

stated that these documents were filed by the petitioner in the enquiry

proceedings, however it is noted that this Court in the impugned

judgment did not stop by holding that Annexures P-3 to P-6 were not

filed before the Enquiry Officer and that therefore, these documents

should not be referred to by this Court, but in fact this Court has

thereafter in paras 9 to 12 of the judgment dealt with on merits the

documents of the petitioner being Annexures P-3 to P-6 of the writ

petition, and given reasons as to why these documents would not help

the petitioner to succeed in the writ petition. Therefore, nothing turns

upon the fact that Annexures P-3 to P-6 were in fact filed by the

petitioner before the Enquiry Officer inasmuch as this Court in paras 9

to 12 has proceeded on the basis in the impugned judgment that what

would be the effect of these documents Annexures P-3 to P-6 taking

that the said documents were indeed filed before the Enquiry Officer.

There is therefore no ground for seeking review on this second ground

also.


6.           Lastly I may note that although there is no such ground in

the review petition, counsel for the review petitioner has argued that

Annexures P-3 to P-6 have been used for reduction of penalty against

RP No.256/2015 in W.P.(C) No.1628/2005                                  Page 5 of 6
 the petitioner by appropriate authority and which original penalty was

of dismissal from service and therefore writ petition should be allowed

by setting aside the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority, the

Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority. First of all this

ground which is not found in the review petition that on the basis of

Annexures P-3 to P-6, the original punishment of the petitioner of

dismissal from services has been reduced to a lesser punishment, but

even if that is so I fail to understand as to how that can be a ground for

seeking review of the judgment dismissing the writ petition by the

impugned Judgment dated 12.3.2015 inasmuch as the effect of the

Judgment dated 12.3.2015 would be that petitioner would only be

imposed the same lesser penalty of reduction of lower time scale of pay.

This ground for seeking review of the Judgment dated 12.3.2015 is also

rejected.


7.           In view of the above, the review petition is dismissed.




APRIL 22, 2016                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib