Telangana High Court
The Food Corporation Of India, vs Sri A. Ravi Chandra, on 12 June, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Writ Appeal No.654 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2024 passed in
W.P.No.23913 of 2020 by the learned Single Judge, the
present writ appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri Dr. P. Bhaskara Mohan, learned Standing
Counsel for FCI appearing for the appellants and Sri
W.B.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
appellants had contended that the respondent was working
as Manager (Electrical Engineering) with the respondents.
While, the respondent was working as Manager (E.E.)
during 2013 to August, 2015, he was involved in certain
financial irregularities and the disciplinary authority i.e.,
General Manager had issued a charge memo on
18.09.2015 alleging that three charges were framed against
the respondent. The respondent has submitted an
explanation denying the charges and not satisfied with the
AKS,J & LNA,J
::2:: wa_654_2024
explanation submitted by the respondent, the disciplinary
authority ordered a detailed departmental enquiry. The
Enquiry Officer has conducted an enquiry and submitted a
report on 10.09.2018 and held that the charges levelled
against the respondent were proved. The disciplinary
authority has imposed a punishment of stoppage of two
increments with cumulative effect vide proceedings, dated
26.10.2020.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants had
further contended that as the allegations were levelled
against the respondent while he was working as Manager,
the General Manager being the competent authority has
issued a charge memo to the respondent on 18.09.2015,
but the respondent was contending that he was promoted
as Assistant General Manager on 18.08.2015 and the
competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings
would be the Executive Director, but not the General
Manager. Learned Standing Counsel further contended
that the respondent was reverted from the post of Assistant
General Manager to that of Manager vide proceedings,
dated 23.07.2018 and the said reversion orders were
challenged by the respondent before the Madras High
AKS,J & LNA,J
::3:: wa_654_2024
Court by filing W.P.No.19753 of 2018 and the Madras High
Court vide interim order, dated 01.08.2018 was pleased to
suspend the reversion order. Subsequently, the appellants
have withdrawn the reversion order vide proceedings,
dated 03.07.2019. Aggrieved by the said orders of
punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative
effect, the respondent has approached this Court by filing
W.P.No.23913 of 2020 and the learned Single Judge was
pleased to allow the writ petition vide order, dated
18.03.2024, without appreciating any of the contentions
raised by the appellants.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants had
further contended that the learned Single Judge has
erroneously allowed the writ petition by setting aside the
orders of punishment. The learned Single Judge could not
have interfered with the orders of punishment, as
admittedly, the disciplinary authority has imposed a
punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative
effect for the proven misconduct in the enquiry. The
learned Single Judge has erroneously came to a conclusion
that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the
incompetent authority i.e., General Manager, as the
AKS,J & LNA,J
::4:: wa_654_2024
respondent has committed certain irregularities while he
was working as Manager. But the General Manger is the
competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings
against the Manager. Therefore, the learned Single Judge
ought not to have interfered with the orders of punishment.
Learned Standing Counsel further contended that had the
respondent indulged in irregularities while working as
Assistant General Manager, the competent authority to
initiate the disciplinary proceedings is Executive Director.
Admittedly, in the instant case, the respondent has
indulged in irregularities while he was working as
Manager. For the Manager post, the disciplinary authority
is General Manager, but not the Executive Director, this
fact was not properly appreciated by the learned Single
Judge and the learned Single Judge had mechanically set
aside the orders of punishment. Therefore, appropriate
orders be passed in the writ appeal by setting aside the
order, dated 18.03.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.23913 of 2020 and allow the writ appeal.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent had contended that the respondent was
promoted as Assistant General Manager on 18.08.2015
AKS,J & LNA,J
::5:: wa_654_2024
and the charge memo was issued by the General Manager
on 18.09.2015, which would mean that the charge memo
was issued by the incompetent authority for the post of
Assistant General Manager. For the Assistant General
Manager, the disciplinary authority is the Executive
Director, but not the General Manager, this fact was rightly
appreciated by the learned Single Judge and rightly set
aside the orders.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent had further
contended that the respondent was promoted as Category-I
Officer i.e., Assistant General Manager on 18.08.2015. As
per Regulation 56 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations
of Food Corporation of India (Staff Regulations), 1971, the
competent authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings
is the Executive Director, but not the General Manager and
the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority i.e.,
General Manager is contrary to law and contrary to the
said Regulations of F.C.I. The learned Single Judge has
rightly set aside the orders of punishment. Therefore, there
are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is dismissed.
8. This Court, having considered the rival submissions
made by the parties, is of the considered view that the
AKS,J & LNA,J
::6:: wa_654_2024
learned Single Judge was justified in interfering with the
orders of punishment as the disciplinary proceedings were
initiated by the incompetent authority by treating the
respondent as category-II Manager post, whereas, the
respondent was promoted as Assistant General Manager
category-I. It is the Executive Director who must initiate
the disciplinary proceedings against the Assistant General
Manager (category-I) post, but not the General Manager.
The learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the
judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Bhavnagar
University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Private Limited and
others 1 and Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath 2 and relied
on several other judgments. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition in favour of
the respondent. However, it will not preclude the
appellants from initiating the appropriate action against
the respondent in terms of the said Regulations of F.C.I.
9. With the above observations/directions, the Writ
Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(2003) 2 SCC 111
(2014) 1 SCC 351
AKS,J & LNA,J
::7:: wa_654_2024
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if
any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date : 12.06.2024
prat
