The Zonal Manager, Food Corpn Of ... vs G.Gangadas Phulchand, Nizamabad ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1886 Tel

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                           AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                      WRIT APEAL No.1098 OF 2009

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

16.12.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8531

of 1999.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

respondent/writ petitioner, who is an employee of the Food

Corporation of India, came up before the learned Single Judge

claiming promotion. It was stated that while he was serving on

the post of Technical Assistant Grade-III, he was subjected to

disciplinary proceedings. Finally, an order was passed on

25.06.1979, under the Food Corporation of India (Staff)

Regulations, 1971 (for short "the Regulations"), inflicting the

punishment of reduction to the minimum of the time scale of

pay which he was drawing for a period of three years with no

scope of earning any increment during the period of such

reduction and without having the effect of postponing the future

increments of his pay on expiry of the punishment period. The

respondent/writ petitioner has raised a plea before the learned

Single Judge that as per Regulation 54 of the Regulations, he is

entitled for promotion even during currency of the punishment

period.

Regulation 54 (v) and (vi) of the Regulations is reproduced

as under:-

"54. Penalties:-

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other regulation, and without prejudice to such action to which an employee may become liable under any other regulation or law for the time being in force, the following penalties may (for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided) be imposed on any employee of the Corporation.

54(v) reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the employee of the Corporation will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay.

54(vi) reduction to a lower time-scale of pay or post which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the employee to the time-scale of pay or post from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the post from which the employee of the Corporation was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that post."

The learned Single Judge, after taking into account the

Regulation 54 (v) and (vi) of the Regulations, has arrived at a

conclusion that the respondent/writ petitioner is entitled for

promotion in case his turn has matured during the period

between 25.06.1979 and 24.06.1982. Meaning thereby, he is

entitled for promotion even during the currency of the

punishment period.

Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued

before this Court that granting of promotion during the period of

currency of punishment will amount to giving a premium to an

employee who has been held guilty of the misconduct.

This Court has carefully gone through the Regulations

and is of the opinion that once the respondent/employee was

undergoing the punishment and the period was three years, he

could not have been promoted during the currency of the

punishment period (see Union Of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman

(1991 AIR 2010)).

It is true that the learned Single Judge, in the concluding

paragraph of the order, has directed the appellant

No.1/respondent No.1 in the writ petition to decide the

representation of the respondent/writ petitioner. However, the

observation made by the learned Single Judge to the effect of

granting promotion by ignoring the punishment deserves to be

deleted and it is accordingly deleted. The appellants shall be

free to decide the representation of the respondent/writ

petitioner, without being influenced by the order passed by the

learned Single Judge, in accordance with the statutory

Regulations governing the field.

With the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

13.04.2022 JSU