Patna High Court
Yogendra Singh vs The Food Corporation Of India on 10 February, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3436 of 2020
======================================================
Yogendra Singh, S/o- Vishwanath Singh, Resident of Ward No.- 10, Virkuwar
Singh Colony, P.S.- Bhagwan Bazar, Distt.- Chapra, Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Food Corporation of India through the Chairman cum Managing
Director, 16-20 Barakhambha Lane New Delhi.
2. The Chairman-cum Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 16-20
Barakhambha Lane New Delhi.
3. Executive Director (East Zone), Food Corporation of India, 10-A Middleton
Row Kolkata- 71.
4. General Manager (Region), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office
Arunachal Building Patna.
5. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar No.1, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Saket Tiwary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-02-2025
Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar No.1, learned Advocate
for the petitioner and Mr. Saket Tiwary, learned Advocate for
the Food Corporation of India.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated
28.07.2015
, as contained in Letter No. Vig.3(Misc)/3/2012-13
passed by respondent no.4, whereby the petitioner has been
inflicted with the penalty of reduction to the lower post of AG-
III(D) with initial pay of reduced post. The petitioner also
Patna High Court CWJC No.3436 of 2020 dt.10-02-2025
assailed the order dated 31.12.2018 vide Reference no.
Vig.5(157)/2018/Bihar/02 passed by the respondent no.3
whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner also came to be
rejected confirming the order of the disciplinary authority.
3. The brief facts of the case are that while the
petitioner along with one Hansraj Singh was serving as AG-
II(D) at Bihar State Warehousing Corporation, Chapra
(hereinafter referred to as 'the BSWC'), a Memo a Charge dated
15.01.2014 was issued against them. The Memo of Charge
under Ref. No. Vig4(1478)/3/2012 was containing of article of
charge, statement of imputation of misconduct, a list of
supporting documents and list of witnesses by whom Article of
charge were proposed to be sustained. In response to the Memo
of Charge, the petitioner submitted his reply refuting the
allegations made against him. However, on being found the
reply unsatisfactory, regular departmental proceeding was
initiated. After enquiry, the conducting officer had submitted
enquiry report holding the charges levelled against the petitioner
were proved. The enquiry report dated 09.03.2015 was placed
before the disciplinary authority, who in turn issued second
show-cause notice along with the enquiry report. The petitioner
submitted a detailed show-cause reply challenging the validity
Patna High Court CWJC No.3436 of 2020 dt.10-02-2025
of the inquiry report and contended that the report was perverse
and flawed, failing to demonstrate how the prosecution had
convincingly established the charges. The show-cause reply of
the petitioner, however, did not find any favour, resultantly the
impugned order of penalty of reduction to lower post of AG-
III(D) with initial pay of reduced post was awarded.
4. Aggrieved with the order of the disciplinary
authority, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal on
06.11.2015, inter alia, stating therein that the disciplinary
authority has not taken into consideration the show-cause vis-a-
vis the written defence statement, qua the charges, apart from
the contention that the enquiry report was perverse and based
upon no finding. On being found no favour, the Appellate
Authority also rejected the statutory appeal of the petitioner by
order dated 31.12.2018.
5. It would be worthwhile to mention here that the
petitioner on being dissatisfied with the order of the Appellate
Authority unsuccessfully preferred Review application before
the Reviewing Authority. The order of the Reviewing Authority
rejecting the review petition dated 10.08.2020 also put to
challenge by filing an interlocutory application, bearing I.A. No.
1 of 2024.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3436 of 2020 dt.10-02-2025
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner while
assailing the aforenoted impugned orders has contended that the
charges against the petitioner was only to the extent that quality
control paper was not prepared, as such, procurement on
25.03.2013 and 26.03.2013 and issue of food-grains on
29.03.2013 and 30.03.2013 was fictitious, which led to
departmental proceeding.
7. It is the contention of the petitioner that for the
same charges one Hansraj Singh was also subjected to
departmental proceeding and inflicted identical punishment
based on the same enquiry report. Said Hansraj Singh
challenged the order of penalty before the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as
'the CGIT') in Complaint Case No. 10 of 2015. On notice, the
respondents entered their appearance and filed written statement
and several witnesses were examined from both sides.
Ultimately, the Tribunal held the enquiry report illegal,
unjustified and thus set aside the same vide Award dated
25.10.2017 and further directed to restore the employee, Hansraj
Singh to his original post. Since the same charges and penalty
was imposed against the petitioner, he claims that identical relief
ought to be granted in his favour.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3436 of 2020 dt.10-02-2025
8. Referring to the enquiry report and the impugned
orders, further contention has been made that apart from the
impugned orders are perverse, the enquiry report of the
conducting officer is based upon no legal evidence, inasmuch
as, there is no discussion and deliberation of the defence
statement/explanation of the petitioner, hence unsustainable in
law as well as on facts.
9. Mr. Saket Tiwary, learned Advocate for the Food
Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the FCI')
dispelling the contention of the learned Advocate for the
petitioner has contended that the grounds taken by the petitioner
is wholly misconceived. Apart from the orders passed by the
CGIT is not binding on the High Court; the award of CGIT
dated 25.10.2017 in Complaint Case No. 10 of 2015 cited by the
petitioner has already been quashed by the High Court of
Jharkhand vide order dated 01.07.2024 passed in W.P.(L) No.
2703 of 2018, the copy of which is placed on record as
AnnexureR1-B.
10. Referring to the facts and materials available on
record, it is contended that while the petitioner was posted as
procurement in-charge at BSWC, Chapra failed to maintain the
issuance of acceptance notes, quality certificates, analysis slips
Patna High Court CWJC No.3436 of 2020 dt.10-02-2025
and purchase-cum-payment vouchers. The petitioner
fraudulently recorded the acceptance of Custom Milled Rice
(CMR) and subsequently issued out the same stock; the entire
transactions were on paper and in fact the stocks were never
received at the depot. The order of the disciplinary authority as
well as appellate authority and reviewing authority are based
upon the enquiry report wherein all the imputations levelled
against the petitioner stood proved. Accordingly, the petitioner
has been accorded the punishment proportionate to the charges
inflicting reduction to the lower post of AG-III(D) with initial
pay of reduced post. The appellate authority also reviewed all
documents and rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
The review of the petitioner also did not find merit. There is a
concurrent finding of the disciplinary authority as well as
appellate and reviewing authority; moreover, there is no
procedural error in the disciplinary proceeding nor any violation
of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was given
full opportunity to present his case.
11. In the aforesaid premise, learned Advocate for
the FCI urged before this Court that the penalty imposed upon
the petitioner is justified and does not warrant any interference
by this Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3436 of 2020 dt.10-02-2025
12. This Court has meticulously heard the learned
Advocate for the respective parties and also perused the
materials available on record. Before parting with the case in
hand, it would be worthwhile to observe that while exercising
the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the role of the Court is confined to see the
procedural irregularity, which led to patent illegality and make
the order of punishment vulnerable. The High Court in the
proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as
an appellate authority, but exercise within the limit of judicial
review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to
manifest injustice and violation of principles of natural justice.
13. It would be apt to encapsulate the relevant
paragraph of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India & Ors v. P. Gunasekaran, reported in
(2015) 2 SCC 610 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
strenuously enunciated the guidelines where the court while
exercising the power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
of India may or may not interfere in a disciplinary proceeding:
"12. Despite the well-settled
position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the
High Court has acted as an appellate authority in
the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even
Patna High Court CWJC No.3436 of 2020 dt.10-02-2025
the evidence before the enquiry officer. The
finding on Charge I was accepted by the
disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal. In
disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not
and cannot act as a second court of first appeal.
The High Court, in exercise of its powers under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
shall not venture into reappreciation of the
evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent
authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of
natural justice in conducting the
proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled
themselves from reaching a fair
conclusion by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and merits of
the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed
themselves to be influenced by irrelevant
or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is
so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no
reasonable person could ever have arrived
at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had
erroneously failed to admit the admissible
Patna High Court CWJC No.3436 of 2020 dt.10-02-2025
and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had
erroneously admitted inadmissible
evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no
evidence."
14. In the light of the aforesaid settled legal
position, now this Court examine the order of penalty, enquiry
report as well as Appellate and the order passed by Reviewing
Authority. The Memo of charge contains the list of documents,
59 in numbers, and a list of witnesses, who were duly examined
and cross-examined during the course of enquiry. The petitioner
has also been given opportunity to place his defence witnesses
and accordingly he has also placed defence witnesses and
finally the enquiry officer concluded that the Article of charges,
the prosecution documents, deposition of PWs. and Dws., the
defence documents, finding recorded in prosecution clearly
reflects that the charges levelled against the delinquent
petitioner are proved.
15. Based upon such detailed enquiry report, the
disciplinary authority has inflicted punishment after giving a
second show-cause notice. The impugned order of penalty has
also taken into consideration the cause shown in reply offered
by the petitioner, before inflicting the punishment. What is
Patna High Court CWJC No.3436 of 2020 dt.10-02-2025
expected from a disciplinary authority, once he agrees with the
finding of the enquiry officer, is a brief consideration of the
show-cause reply filed by the delinquent officer, which is also
present herein. This Court also does not find any procedural
irregularity, leading to manifest illegality in the impugned order
of disciplinary authority and appellate authority as well as
reviewing authority.
16. Learned Advocate for the petitioner also failed
to point out any cogent irregularity, which warrants interference
in the impugned orders. Moreover, the very contention of the
petitioner based upon the ground that the order of penalty issued
in favoaur of the identically situated employee, namely, Hansraj
Singh, was set aside by the CGIT is no more available to the
petitioner, as is apparent on the fact of the order of the High
Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P.(L) No. 2703 of 2018, as
the order of the CGIT, now stands quashed, although on the
point of maintainability giving liberty to the said employee to
avail the remedy of appeal.
17. In view of the discussions made hereinabove
and the position obtaining in law this Court does not find any
merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands
dismissed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3436 of 2020 dt.10-02-2025
18. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 19.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
