[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
WA/338/2025 on 19 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010054722025
2026:GAU-AS:4019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
1. Writ Appeal No.58 of 2026
1. The Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 16-20
Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Executive Director, Food Corporation of India, N.E.
Zone, Ulubari, G.L.P. Building, G.S. Road, Guwahti -
781007.
3. The General Manager (R), Regional Office, Assam
Region, Paltan Bazaar, Guwahati - 781008.
......Appellants
-Versus-
Shri Ranjeet Singh,
Son of Shri Basudeo Prasad,
Resident of Bishnu Nagar, Bishnu Rabha Path, PO & PS;
Tezpur, Assam, PIN - 784001.
......Respondent
2. Writ Appeal No.297 of 2025
1. The Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 16-20
Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Executive Director, Food Corporation of India, N.E.
Zone, Ulubari, G.L.P. Building, G.S. Road, Guwahti -
781007.
3. The General Manager (R), Regional Office, Assam
Region, Paltan Bazaar, Guwahati - 781008.
......Appellants
Page No.# 2/7
-Versus-
Shri Pradeep Kumar,
Son of Birjnandan Prasad,
Resident of Chitralekha Nagar,
PO & PS: Tezpur, Assam, PIN - 784001.
......Respondents
3. Writ Appeal No.338 of 2025
1. The Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 16-20
Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Executive Director, Food Corporation of India, N.E.
Zone, Ulubari, G.L.P. Building, G.S. Road, Guwahti -
781007.
3. The General Manager (R), Regional Office, Assam
Region, Paltan Bazaar, Guwahati - 781008.
......Appellants
-Versus-
Shri Ankit Kumar,
Son of Shri Gopal Sharan,
Resident of Lao Khowa Road, Haiborgaon, PO & PS:
Nagaon, Assam, PIN - 782002.
......Respondent
- BEFORE -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Roy, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mrs. A.
Chakraborty, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. G.K. Gupta, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 19.03.2026.
Date of Judgment : 19.03.2026.
Page No.# 3/7
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
All the 3(three) appeals have been heard together and are
being disposed off by this common judgment.
2. We have heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Senior Advocate for the
appellant/Food Corporation of India (FCI) and Mr. G.K. Gupta, learned
Advocate for the respondents in all the 3(three) appeals.
3. The appellant/FCI has questioned 3(three) separate
judgments, all dated 18.12.2024, passed by a learned Single Judge of this
Court in WP(C) No.2921/2023; WP(C) No.4486/2023 and WP(C)
No.4606/2023, whereby the fine slapped on the respondents herein have
been interfered with and set aside with a direction that the respondents
shall not be penalized so far as their promotional avenues are
concerned.
The further direction in the judgments impugned is that the
appellant/FCI must resort to "sealed cover" procedure with respect to
promotion of the respondents to the higher posts.
4. During audit, huge quantities of food grains were found short in
the storage sheds of the appellant/FCI of which the respondents were
the In-charge. The Disciplinary Authority found that the respondents were
to be blamed for the unusual losses which were directly attributable to
the negligence of the respondents. Hence, all the respondents were
separately slapped with a fine, which, according to the appellant/FCI,
was proportionate to their guilt.
Page No.# 4/7
5. It appears from the records of all the 3(three) appeals that
initially the appellant/FCI wanted to initiate Departmental Proceeding for
major penalties against the respondents for the huge losses which had
occurred in the storage depots of which they were In-charge, but on the
basis of the explanations offered by the respondents, it was decided that
they be proceeded against under Regulation 60 of the Food Corporation
of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as the
"Regulation of 1971"), which provides for minor penalties.
6. The respondents had challenged the afore-noted decision of
saddling them with fine said to be proportionate to their guilt before the
Departmental Authorities, which were rejected and the Review Petitions
preferred by the respondents before the Chairman & Managing Director,
FCI also could not be sustained. In fact, the review orders, as perused by
this Court, gives somewhat stronger reason for slapping the fines on the
respondents by explanation that the loss detected in the respective
storage depots could not have been mere storage loss and that the
explanations offered by the respondents did not actually explain their
bona fides so far as their negligence was concerned.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgments reflects that the learned
Single Judge, after having gone through the records of each of the case
files and the Circular dated 12.02.2008 issued by the appellant/FCI,
preventing holding of officers or employees of the FCI to be responsible
for a storage loss and there being no material disclosed during the
Departmental Proceedings that the loss was due to any fault on the part
of the respondents, set aside the original as well as the appellate and the
Page No.# 5/7
review orders holding the respondents guilty to the extent of their
liabilities.
8. Animadverting against the afore-noted judgments, Mr. Roy,
learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/FCI submitted that
in fact the records provide res ipsa loquitur that it was only the
negligence of the depot In-charge or otherwise the losses would not be
of such magnitude. It is a matter of common knowledge that during the
storage, there are some losses but losses of the magnitude reported
would not have been possible without the depot In-charge being
negligent in recording the stock or being vigilant against any purloining
of the food grains.
Mr. Roy, learned Senior Advocate has also pointed out an
advisory issued by the appellant/FCI with respect to the rate at which the
recovery could be made from the FCI staff. This advisory also confirms
that in the event of any losses found due to willful negligent of any FCI
official, recovery proceedings be made but only as per the procedure
laid down on the subject and as per the Regulation of 1971 and the
recovery of such losses from FCI staff is to be made at economic cost
prevalent during the period. However, it was further emphasized in the
afore-noted advisory that resort to such recovery would only be
permissible when negligence is prima facie established.
9. The contention of the respondents before the learned Single
Judge and before this Court as well has been that because of the losses
reported, there is an inferential guilt which the FCI was under an
obligation to establish, at least prima facie, for it to order for recovery
Page No.# 6/7
from its employees.
10. True it is that a summary procedure was adopted where it
might not have been extremely necessary to sift through the materials
with the aid of judicial colander but then seeking recovery from an
employee on facts which are not established would be against the
public policy and would also be against the Circulars issued from time to
time by the appellant/FCI and its advisory for the process or the
procedure to be evenly followed pan India.
11. The contention of the respondents is that the learned Single
Judge took note of the fact that such losses were because of wrong
reporting in the stock which was not possible for the respondents to tinker
with, especially, when they had joined the respective depots at a time
when that shortage was pre-existing.
12. True it is that such losses had to be reported but only if it were
evident at the time of joining of the respondents in the respective depots
or during their tenure as storage/shed In-charge. This discovery was
made much later in the regular audit for which the respondents could
not have been blamed.
13. We have perused the records and the evidence before the
authorities, mindful of the fact that it was a summary proceeding under
Regulation 60 of the Regulation of 1971, and are of the considered view
that the negligence attributable to the respondents for the losses could
not be established for the FCI to initiate the recovery proceedings.
Thus, we sustain the judgments impugned in the present set of
Page No.# 7/7
appeals so far as stoppage of recovery is concerned.
14. Since only a summary procedure was initiated against the
respondents, there was no sufficient occasion for the employer/FCI to
determine the guilt of negligence of the respondents. It would be open
for the appellant/FCI to initiate requisite proceeding against the
respondents individually, should it be deemed necessary for the efficient
working of the Corporation in general.
15. Any observation made by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned judgments regarding no proceeding being initiated against
the respondents shall not be given effect to.
16. With the afore-noted modifications in the impugned
judgments, all the 3(three) appeals are disposed off.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Mukut by Mukut
Sharma Date: 2026.03.19
15:54:18 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant
