IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 4753 of 2001 Shri Ramesh Chandra …….Petitioner. Versus Food Corporation of India & others …..Respondents Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents at length. The petitioner was a Technical Assistant Grade II working with the Food Corporation of India. At the relevant time, he was posted at Sultan Godown of Food Storage Depot, Rampur. The allegation of the department is that certain foodgrains from the aforesaid Godown were transported to Jallandhar and Phagwara in State of Punjab in the year 1996. These foodgrains were found to be of inferior quality as a result the department had suffered a loss of Rs. 16,66,844/-. Consequently thereafter an enquiry was constituted in this matter and the liability was fixed, inter alia, on the petitioner for the said anomalies. It is necessary to state at this juncture that a total number of 12 persons of the Department including the petitioner, were implicated in this incident and thereafter on the basis of an enquiry conducted by the department a penalty of Rs. 1,38,903.66 was fixed on the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged this fixation of penalty on him on various technical grounds. However, the fact of the matter is that the recovery was to be made from the petitioner in equal instalments which was recoverable from his salary. By now the petitioner has returned the entire liability to the department by way of these deductions. At this stage, learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India Sri M.C. Pande has stated that the petitioner had not exhausted his statutory remedy of an appeal which lies before the Zonal Manager of the Zone under Section 68 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff Regulation), 1971. 2 Although the Writ Petition is filed in the year 2001 and at this stage it does not seem to be proper to relegate the matter to the appellate authority, yet this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority for two reasons. Firstly, the petitioner has already deposited with the department the entire amount which was to be recovered from him. This amount has already been deducted from the salary of the petitioner, as there was no interim order in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the Writ Petition. Apart from this, the petitioner has also stated that since at the relevant time he was the incharge of Sultan Godown and there were other employees who were also involved in the case apart from the petitioner and therefore at best liability of only Sultan Godown could have been fixed on the petitioner. Since these are disputed questions of fact, it is necessary that this matter be examined by the appellate authority. The appellate authority will examine the entire issue raised by the petitioner including the aspect as to whether the liability only relating to “Sultan” Godown can be fixed upon the petitioner. The appellate authority will decide the appeal within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. In case the appellate authority comes to the conclusion that the liability has wrongly been fixed upon the petitioner or any amount thereof has been unjustly recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be given to the petitioner forthwith. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 4.8.2010 Avneet