Page No.# 1/5 vs Saifur Raja Choudhury
2025 Latest Caselaw 7336 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs Saifur Raja Choudhury on 16 September, 2025

                                                                         Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010001502024




                                                                   2025:GAU-
AS:12740-DB

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WA/77/2024

            FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
            REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, 16-20,
            BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI- 1.

            2: THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NE
             FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
             G.S. ROAD
             ULUBARI
             GHY- 7.

            3: THE GENERAL MANAGER REGION
             FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
             G.S. ROAD
             ULUBARI
             GHY- 7.

            4: THE AREA MANAGER
             FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
             STEAMERGHAT ROAD
             SILCHAR
             DIST- CACHAR
            ASSAM
             PIN- 788001

            VERSUS

            SAIFUR RAJA CHOUDHURY
            S/O- SAIDUR RAJA CHOUDHURY, R/O VILL.- HATKHALA, P.O.- KANAI
            BAZAR, P.S.- PATHARKANDI, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. P K ROY, MS. M DUTTA,MRS. A CHAKRABORTY,MR. S K
                                                                                        Page No.# 2/5

CHAKRABORTY

Advocate for the Respondent : MS. U BARUAH, MR. N DHAR,MR. T U LASKAR




                                               BEFORE
                   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
                     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY


            For the Appellant              :     Mr. P. K. Roy, Sr. Advocate.
                                                 Mr. S. K. Chakraborty, Advocate
            For the Respondents            :     Mr. N. Dhar, Advocate.
                                                 Mr. T. U. Laskar, Advocate.
            Date of Hearing                :    16.09.2025


            Date of Judgment               :    16.09.2025.


                                JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

A.D.Choudhury, J

1. We have heard Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellants; also heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned Senior Counsel, with Mr. T. U. Laskar, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. By the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2023, passed in WP(C)/4682/2012, the challenge made by the respondent to the penalty of removal from service was set aside as disproportionate and accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority to re-decide the issue and impose a proportionate lesser punishment. The penalty of withholding of gratuity was also set aside not being a prescribed punishment under the Regulation'1971.

3. The facts in a nutshell are that the respondent, while serving as a Shed In-charge of Food Storage Depot, FCI, was proceeded departmentally under Regulation 58 of the FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation 1971), with two charges which are quoted herein below:

Page No.# 3/5

"Charge-I

A Regional Office team after peripheral counting of stocks at Shed No. 4 on the declaration of stocks as on 23.07.2010 (OB) submitted by the Shed-in-Charge detected 320 Bags Wheat excess only the stack. The counting sheet was duly signed by Md.

Saifur Raja Choudhury, AG-II(D) the Shed In-Charges, Shed No.4.

Charge-II

A District Office Committee from FCI, District Office, Silchar supervised 100% delivery operation weighment of wheat stocks during the month of September, 2010 detected excess of 304 Bags= 14411000 Qtls wheat (indg) in Shed-4. The value of which comes to Rs. 3,16,610/- @ Rs. 2,197/- per Quintal".

4. The respondent contested such charges; however, the Disciplinary Authority found the charges proved. Consequently, the respondent was inflicted with the punishment of removal from service and forfeiture of gratuity due to the petitioner. The appellate authority also dismissed the respondent's appeal. In the writ petition, the respondent assailed the penalty and not the decisions.

5. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, after taking due note of Regulation 54(viii) of the Regulation, 1971, concluded that though removal from the service is one of the penalties, there is no penalty prescribed under the said Regulation for withholding the gratuity, as has been done by the employer. Accordingly, the decision of the employer on this count was interfered with.

6. The learned Single Judge, referring to Regulation 32A (1), (5), (9) & (30) of the Regulations, 1971 and the Enquiry Report concluded that there is no finding in the Enquiry Report, which points explicitly misconduct prescribed under Regulation 32A(1), (5), (9) &(30) of the Regulation, 1971, and that, there is also no finding by the Inquiry officer that the petitioner had acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the corporation or negligently towards his performance slowing down the work of the employer.

7. It was also concluded that there is no finding by the Inquiry officer that, under Regulation Page No.# 4/5

1971, the failure of the petitioner to maintain the books of record correctly will amount to an act which will be construed as misconduct to remove the petitioner from service.

8. Finally, though the learned Single Judge, recorded that there is no material to satisfy as to how the allegation of misconduct can be sustained against the petitioner; however placing reliance on the admission of the respondent employee that non recording of the particulars in the ledger was due to his oversight, the learned Single Judge opined that the punishment of removal from service shall be disproportionate and accordingly, passed the impugned judgment as recorded hereinabove.

9. Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Senior Advocate has assailed the judgment above contending that while imposing the punishment, the competent authority under its order dated 22.12.2011, had duly observed, based on official records, that the delinquent declared the received weight as 48.9 to 49.50 kg per bag whereas, during issue, it was found as 49.7 to 50.19 kg per bag and therefore, it is evident that the delinquent has deliberately declared the receipt of weight of the wheat consignment incurring abnormal transit loss and resultantly, the delinquent was able to gain 320 bags of wheat allowing the corporation to suffer a loss in the form of transit loss; however, learned Single Judge, has ignored such finding.

10. The facts remain that though the competent authority made the observation above in the order of punishment, the same was not a charge against the accused, nor was there any finding by the Inquiry officer in that regard. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to interfere with the well- reasoned judgment of the learned Single Judge. That being said, the fact remains that the learned Single Judge has not interfered with the aforementioned order dated 22.12.2011 but found the punishment to be disproportionate.

11. So far as the interference with the withholding of gratuity is concerned, we do not find any reason to interfere, since it is an admitted position that withholding gratuity is not a prescribed punishment under the Regulation, 1971. We need not reiterate that it is a settled proposition of service jurisprudence that no punishment which is not contemplated or prescribed under the relevant statutory rules can be imposed upon a delinquent employee. Disciplinary authority is bound by the framework of the rules and cannot travel beyond the same in devising a new penalty Page No.# 5/5

12. Now coming to the argument of Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel, that the learned Single Judge, while remanding the matter to the authority, ought not to have substituted its own assessment of the "appropriate penalty" by directing the authorities to impose a "lesser punishment", should not also detain us, since law in this regard is well settled.

13. We take note here that, in ordinary course, when a Court concludes that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, it does not generally substitute its own assessment of the appropriate penalty; instead, the establish judicial approach is to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for re- consideration. This principle stems from the recognition that the authority imposing the punishment is in the best position to evaluate the nature of the misconduct and determine an appropriate action within the framework of service rules and regulations. Judicial restraint in such matters ensures that courts do not usurp the role of administrative authorities by engaging in executive decision-making. (Ref: 2025 SCC Online SC 439).

14. Taking note of the aforesaid settled propositions of law, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge, correctly, remanded the matter back. Here, expression "lesser punishment" used by the learned single judge shall mean a punishment lesser than "removal from service", which was held to be disproportionate and not a direction prescribing a specific punishment. Therefore, it cannot be said that such direction shall usurp the role of disciplinary authorities.

15. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we do not find any good ground to fault with the judgment impugned. The appeal is thus dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.

               JUDGE                                                   CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant