IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 911 of 2008(H) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- P.K.LEELA, MANAGER (GENERAL), FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, TRICHUR-680 581, RESIDING AT "SOUGANDHIGAM", TC 13/1079, NADATHARA ROAD, MANNUTHI P.O., TRICHUR-680 651. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI HOUSE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, KESAVADASAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM-695 004. 3. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, TRICHUR-680 581. 4. THE ZONAL MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006. ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.R.ANISON SRI.T.R.RAJESH SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, FCI FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 911 of 2008(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1: Memorandum dtd.10/5/05 along with Statement of Imputations issued by 2nd respondent to petitioner. EXHIBIT P2: Representation dtd.25/5/05 submitted by petitioner to 2nd respondent. EXHIBIT P3: Order dtd.12/7/05 issued by 2nd respondent to petitioner. EXHIBIT P4: Appeal dtd.25/7/05 submitted by petitioner before 4th respondent. EXHIBIT P5: Argument Note dtd.7/3/06 submitted by petitioner before Executive Director (South Zone), FCI, Chennai. EXHIBIT P6: Order dtd.10/3/06, issued by 4th respondent to petitioner. EXHIBIT P7: Review Petition dtd,27/3/06 submitted by petitioner before 1st respondent. EXHIBIT P8: Order dtd.31/1/07 issued by 1st respondent to petitioner. EXHIBIT P9: Order dtd.29/5/07 issued by 1st respondent to petitioner. EXHIBIT P9-a: Order dtd.22/8/05 issued by 1st respondent. EXHIBIT P9-b: Order dtd.22/8/05 issued by 1st respondent. EXHIBIT P9-c: Order dtd.3/6/06 issued by 1st respondent. EXHIBIT P9-d: Order dtd.2/8/06 issued by 1st respondent. EXHIBIT P9-e: Order dtd.12/7/05 issued by 1st respondent. EXHIBIT P9-f: Order dtd.12/7/05 issued by 1st respondent. EXHIBIT P9-g: Order dtd.22/8/05 issued by 1st respondent. EXHIBIT P9-h: Order dtd.12/7/05 issued by 1st respondent. EXHIBIT P9-i: Order dtd.12/7/05 issued by 1st respondent. WP(C).No. 911 of 2008(H) EXHIBIT P9-j: Order dtd.12/7/05 issued by 1st respondent. EXHIBIT P10: Statement showing the monetary loss suffered by the petitioner consequent on the withholding of one increment from 1/1/06 for one year without cumulative effect. EXHIBIT P11: Letter dtd.7/6/05 issued by the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent. EXHIBIT P12: Proceedings No.Estt.32(14)/05 dtd.12/6/07 issued to the petitioner by the Public Information Officer and Area Manager. EXHIBIT P13: Letter No.Estt.1/32(12)/2009 dtd.4/11/09 sent by the 4th respondent to the petitioner. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: Nil True copy P.A. to Judge K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C). No. 911 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Exhibits P3, P6 and P8. 2. The petitioner was working as Assistant Manager in Food Corporation of India Office, Mulamkunnathukavu. A surprise check was conducted in that office on 31/3/2005. It was found that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent in the forenoon on 31/3/2005. During the afternoon session, she submitted an application for casual leave for the half day. That was not granted. It was also seen that the petitioner did not mark her departure on 30/3/2005 in the register concerned. Exhibit P1 memorandum dated 10/5/2005 and the “statement of imputations of mis-conduct or mis-behavior” were served on the petitioner. She was directed to submit her representation within ten days. The petitioner submitted Exhibit P2 representation. She stated that her mother was seriously ill and she was bedridden. The mother of the petitioner was residing about 40 Kilometers away from Mulamkunnathukavu. On getting information that the W.P(C). No. 911 /2008 2 condition of her mother was serious, she left the place and therefore, she could not attend the office in the forenoon on 31/3/2005. As regards the allegations that she did not mark her departure in the register concerned, the explanation of the petitioner was that after signing register in the morning session, the register was taken to the administrative department and it was not made available at the time of departure of the petitioner. 3. The explanation offered by the petitioner was not accepted by the disciplinary authority. As per Exhibit P3 order dated 12/7/2005, penalty of withholding of one increment falling due on 1/1/2006 for a period of one year without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner challenged Exhibit P3 order in appeal. She filed a writ petition before the High Court for a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal expeditiously after affording an opportunity of being heard to her. As directed by the High Court in the Writ Petition, the petitioner was heard by the appellate authority and Exhibit P6 order was passed on 10/3/2006. Appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner filed a review petition before the W.P(C). No. 911 /2008 3 Managing Director of the Food Corporation of India. The revision was dismissed as per Exhibit P8 order dated 31/1/2007. As stated earlier, the petitioner has challenged Exhibits P3, P6 and P8 orders in this Writ Petition. 4. In Exhibit P3 order, it was held that the disciplinary authority found that the explanation offered by the petitioner was not genuine. It was also noticed by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner had levelled allegations against others in the office and those allegations would not absolve her from disciplinary action being taken against her. The appellate authority and revisional authority concurred with the view taken by the disciplinary authority. The decisions of the authorities are based on facts. It was found that the explanation offered by the petitioner was not genuine. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that other staff members in the office also were found absent on 31/3/2005, but lesser punishment was imposed on them. The counsel referred to various exhibits under which punishments were imposed on some of them. It is seen from those documents that the disciplinary authority took the peculiar W.P(C). No. 911 /2008 4 facts and circumstances of the case in respect of individual officer or staff concerned, and imposed appropriate penalty. That a lesser penalty was imposed on other officer or staff members is not a ground for impugning the penalty imposed on petitioner. The appellate authority as well as revisional authority have rightly taken that view. 5. I do not think that the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 226 of the Constitution of India to upset the findings of the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the authority who heard the review petition. The writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly, dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm