[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs Bindeswari Singh And 11 Ors on 23 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010095302025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/195/2025
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS.
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE, ASSAM, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI-701008.
2: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (NORTH EAST ZONE)
FCI
G.L. PUBLICATION BUILDING
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI-781008.
3: GENERAL MANAGER
FCI
REGIONAL OFFICE
ASSAM
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-781008.
4: DIVISIONAL MANAGER
FCI
ULUBARI
MITRA BUILDING
GUWAHATI-781007.
5: DIVISIONAL MANAGER
FCI
A.T. ROAD
HAIBORGAON
NAGAON
PIN-782002.
6: MANAGER ACCOUNTS
FCI
ULUBARI
MITRA BUILDING
Page No.# 2/7
GUWAHATI-781007.
7: MANAGER ACCOUNTS
FCI.
A.T. ROAD
HAIBORGAON
NAGAON-782002.
8: MANAGER (IR)
FCI.
ULUBARI
MITRA BUILDING
GUWAHATI-781007.
9: MANAGER DEPOT FOOD STORAGE DEPOT.
NEW GUWAHATI
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI-781021
VERSUS
BINDESWARI SINGH AND 11 ORS.
S/O. JHARI LAL SINGH, R/O. KARBI NAGAR, H/NO. 10, BAMUNIMAIDAM,
GUWAHATI-21.
2:NAWAL SAH
S/O. LT. KAMAL SAH
R/O. VILL.- BILPAR OF SUNCHALI
H/NO. 46
NOONMATI
GUWAHATI20.
3:RADHE MAHATO
S/O. BAJRANGI MAHATO
R/O. SANKAR NAGAR LAST GATE
H/NO. 2
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI-20.
4:RAM CHALITRA YADAV
S/O. SHIV NANDAN YADAV
R/O. BISHNU RAVA NAGAR
H/NO. 5
NOONMATI
GUWAHATI-20
5:JIBACH SAHANI
S/O. PRADIP SAHANI
Page No.# 3/7
R/O. GANESHMANDIR
SHIVAM PATH
BYE LANE NO. 3
H/O. NO. 9
P/O. NOONMATI
GUWAHATI-20
ASSAM.
6:SULENDRA KR. SAHANI
S/O. LT. ANANDI SAHANI
R/O. BISNI RAVA NAGAR
H/NO. 18
P/O. NOONMATI
GUWAHATI-781020
ASSAM.
7:RAM ISWAR KUMAR
S/O. RADHEY RAY
R/O. JANTA NAGAR
H/NO. 15
P/O. NOONMATI
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI-781020
ASSAM.
8:ARVIND KUMAR SAHANI
S/O. ANUPLAL SAHANI
R/O. 6 NO. RAILWAY GATE
H/NO. 144
P/O. BAMUNIMAIDAM
DIST. KAMRUP
GUWAHATI-781021
ASSAM.
9:DILIP KUMAR YADAV
S/O. RAMU YADAV
R/O. BISHNU RAVA NAGAR
NOONMATI
GUWAHATI-781020
ASSAM.
10:SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA
S/O. MATUKDEV SARMA
R/O. VILL.- SAHANKAR NAGAR
H/NO. 33
P/O. NOONMATI
GUWAHATI-781020
ASSAM.
Page No.# 4/7
11:DIPLAL SAH
S/O. MAHINDRA SAH
R/O. BISHNU RAVA NAGAR
H/NO. 22
P/O. NOONMATI
GUWAHATI-781020
ASSAM.
12:RANJIT KUMAR RAY
S/O. RAMDEO RAY
R/O. GANESH MANDIR PATH
BYE LANE NO. 30
P/O. NOONMATI
GUWAHATI-781020
ASSAM
For the appellants : Mr. P.K. Roy, Sr. Advocate
Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. A. Dasgupta, Sr. Advocate
Mr. B. Das, Advocate
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
23-03-2026
(Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.)
We have heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Senior Advocate for the
appellants/Food Corporation of India and others and Mr. A. Dasgupta,
learned Senior Advocate for the respondents.
At some point of time in the past, an audit by the Controller and
Page No.# 5/7
Auditor General (CAG) was made of the expenses made by the Food
Corporation of India (hereinafter to be referred as "FCI") towards
payments made to the labourers between October, 2013 and March,
2014 and in that audit, it was found that there were discrepancies in the
work certification. The stock accounts displayed that there were only
57,521 bags of food grains which were lifted but payments were made to
the labourers for lifting of 12,43,312 bags. The audit therefore revealed an
over-certification of 11,85,791 bags.
The natural corollary of this disclosure was that undue payments
were made to the labourers beyond their entitlements.
On the basis of the afore-noted audit report by the CAG, recovery
from such labourers were initiated from their respective salaries/wages.
This initiation of recovery process was questioned by many of the
labourers, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 , which resulted in a
Coordinate Bench passing an order of stopping the recovery presently
and resume it only after an opportunity was given to the labourers to
explain their cause and further quantification of the amount which was
sought to be recovered. While directing for such contingent
proceedings, this Court had permitted the appellant/FCI to conduct
disciplinary enquiries. However, by that time, with respect to those
labourers, who had challenged such decision of the FCI, recoveries had
already been made. The commencement of the disciplinary enquiries
was thus not made contingent on the refund of the recovered amounts
paid to the respective labourers.
Page No.# 6/7
It further appears from the records that after the enquiry, it was
found that it was not only a mistake on the part of the FCI authorities but
it was a fraudulent over-certification in which the labourers also had
played a role. The decision to recover the excess amount paid to the
labourers, therefore, was taken, which we are not aware, whether was
questioned by the labourers in a separate proceeding.
In the case of the twelve respondents in this appeal, the recoveries
had already been made but there was no show-cause notice to them
prior to such recovery.
The learned Single Judge in their cases [WP(C) 1223/2023] permitted
the FCI to conduct an enquiry but only after refunding the recovered
amounts first.
This condition was not there in the earlier proceedings with respect
to other labourers. That part of the order passed by the learned Single
Judge has been impugned in the present appeal with the assertion by
the FCI that such condition was very onerous and if the amount
recovered would be refunded and it so happens that the respondents
are not in the service of FCI, it would be very difficult to claim it back
after they are found to be in cahoots with the authorities of FCI in over-
certification and payment.
We find substance in the afore-noted submission of the learned
Senior Advocate for the appellant/FCI.
Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents
submits that he shall take instructions whether the respondents are still in
the service of the FCI or have superannuated.
Page No.# 7/7
Re-notify on 05.05.2026.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
