Sh. Ram Mehar vs Food Corporation Of India And Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 7525 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P. (C) No.7635/2000

%                                                      21st December, 2016

SH. RAM MEHAR                                              ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate.
                          versus

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS.        ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues one very limited issue

in this writ petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India by the petitioner for setting aside the orders passed by the

departmental authorities, being the order of the disciplinary authority dated

23/24.6.1993 and the order of the appellate authority dated 28.6.1999.

2. The limited issue which is argued is that whereas the

disciplinary authority vide its order dated 23/24.6.1993 imposed the penalty

of compulsory retirement from services of the petitioner with the respondent

no.1/Food Corporation of India/employer, the appellate authority seemingly

reduced the punishment by instead granting reversion in post of the

petitioner from AG-I(D) to AG-II(D) with minimum pay in the reversion

grade till his retirement, but such punishment is in fact a harsher punishment

or increase of punishment in the facts of this case whereby petitioner retired

around a year of passing of the order of the appellate authority.

3. The relevant paras of the orders of the disciplinary authority

and the appellate authority read as under:-

"Disciplinary authority's order dated 23/24.6.1993

6. NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 56 read with Regulation 54 & 59 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, impose upon Shri Ram Mehar, AM(D) the penalty of "Compulsory Retirement from the services of the Corporation with immediate effect".

7. A copy of this order be placed in the C.R. Dossier of Shri Ram Mehar, Asstt. Manager(D) now AG-I(D).

Sd/-

(S.S.C. MADAN) ZONAL MANAGER (NORTH)

Appellate authority's order dated 28.6.1999 Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case I feel that the penalty imposed by the Zonal Manager (N) upon Shri Ram Mehar is little harsh considering the gravity of the case. I, therefore, propose that the penalty of reversion from AG-I to AG-II(D) with minimum of time scale of AG-II(D) will meet the ends of justice.

I, S.S. DAWRA, Managing Director, being the Appellate Authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation-72 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 hereby modify the penalty of "Compulsory Retirement" imposed by the Zonal Manager (North) upon Shri Ram Mehar vide order dated 23/24.6.93 to that of reversion from the post of AG-I(D) to AG-II(D) with the minimum of pay of AG-II(D) till his retirement.

Sd/-

(S.S. DAWRA) MANAGING DIRECTOR"

4. Counsel for the petitioner argues the limited issue that the

appellate authority by its order has in fact "killed the petitioner with

kindness" because the effect of the order of the appellate authority has much

drastic consequences than the order of the disciplinary authority inasmuch

as the petitioner otherwise retired within around a year of passing of order

by the appellate authority and thus resulting in petitioner getting much lesser

terminal benefits than that petitioner would have got as per the order of the

disciplinary authority. It is argued that the petitioner is ready to accept the

order of the disciplinary authority of compulsory retirement, and therefore,

the order of the appellate authority be set aside because the petitioner

accepts the punishment of compulsory retirement from services and the

appellate authority could not have given a higher punishment without the

employer challenging the order of the disciplinary authority.

5. In my opinion, there cannot be any quarrel by the respondents

to the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner because the appellate

authority vide its order dated 28.6.1999 clearly records that the penalty of

compulsory retirement is harsh, and therefore, the penalty of compulsory

retirement is „reduced‟ by reversion in rank, and therefore once the

petitioner is ready to accept the higher penalty as imposed by the

disciplinary authority, therefore, this writ petition is accordingly allowed

and disposed of by recording the statement on behalf of the petitioner that

the order of the disciplinary authority dated 23/24.6.1993 will be binding

against the petitioner and consequently the order of the appellate authority

dated 28.6.1999 is accordingly set aside more so because an appellate

authority cannot give a higher punishment than imposed by the disciplinary

authority once the employer has not challenged the order of the disciplinary

authority.

6. Taking the petitioner to have compulsorily retired in terms of

the order of the disciplinary authority, the respondents will now act in

consequential manner so far as the terminal benefits of the petitioner are

concerned.

7. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the limited extent as

stated above and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations.

DECEMBER 21, 2016                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne