IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14056 of 1992 Date of decision: 1st December, 2010 S.K. Vij … Petitioner Versus Food Corporation of India and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition has been filed by S.K. Vij, who was posted as an Assistant (Grade-II) in Food Storage Depot of the Food Corporation of India at Ferozepur City. He has prayed that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and the communication (Annexure P-1) dated 10th October, 1983, vide which a chargesheet was served upon him, along with order (Annexure P-3) dated 13th June, 1989, whereby a punishment of reduction to lower post without restoration to the higher post, along with recovery of an amount of Rs.21,754/- was ordered to be made from him, be quashed. It has been further prayed that order (Annexure P-5) dated 10/12.04.1991 passed by the appellate authority, whereby the order of punishment was affirmed, along with the order (Annexure P-7) dated 4th August, 1992 passed by the reviewing authority, be also set aside. Civil Writ Petition No.14056 of 1992 Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the punishing authority, being lower in rank than the appointing authority, was not competent to pass the impugned order (Annexure P-3). To controvert this argument, counsel for the respondent- Corporation has relied upon ‘Food Corporation of India and others v. Sone Lal’ 2005(13) SCC 11. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the argument raised by counsel for the respondent-Corporation is not tenable. However, he has submitted that at this stage, the present writ petition can be disposed of on the sole ground that the punishing authority, while recording disagreement with the Enquiry Officer, had not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel has stated that this is contrary to the mandate of law laid down in ‘Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Bihari Misra’ 1998(7) SCC 84. To blunt this argument, counsel for the respondent- Corporation has very fairly stated that at this stage the punishing authority can afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after recording disagreement to the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that in pursuance of the statement made by counsel for the respondent-Corporation, he is ready and willing to agree to this course, provided this Court reserves all other arguments in favour of the petitioner and without prejudice to his other rights. This Court appreciates the fair stand taken by counsel for the respondent-Corporation during the course of arguments. Hence, the impugned orders (Annexures P-3, P-5 and P-7) are hereby set aside. The 2 Civil Writ Petition No.14056 of 1992 punishing authority is directed to pass an appropriate order afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. With the observations made above, present writ petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 1, 2010 rps 3