CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19910 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 23 ,2011 Harbans Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Food Corporation of India, New Delhi and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Advocate for Mr. B. R. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The grievance of the petitioner is that the action of the respondents in imposing two penalties of reduction in rank and that of recovery leads to award of major and minor penalties, which is not legally permissible. He has accordingly filed this writ petition to impugn the said order. The petitioner has joined the service of the Corporation on 1.1.1972 as A.G.III (D). He was promoted as A.G.I (D) in 1991. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19910 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: Some paddy stock was stored at Goniana Centre in open field. When the petitioner was posted as A.G-II (D), who was overall Incharge of Goniana Centre, this paddy was stocked at Goniana. During 1998- 99, this stock was issued for milling to various millers. Based on the loss in weight of paddy, memoranda under Regulation 58 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (for short, “the Regulations”) for imposing major penalty was served on the petitioner on 7.9.2002. After holding enquiry, the petitioner was imposed the penalty of reversion from the post of A.G.I (D) to A.G.II (D) for two years coupled with recovery of `50,000/-. As per the petitioner, the penalty of reversion has been classified as major penalty whereas the penalty of recovery is classified as minor penalty under Regulation 54 of the Regulations. It is submitted that imposing of major and minor penalty together is impermissible. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against this order. In the meantime, the petitioner was compulsorily retired on 7.4.2005. Subsequently, however, his appeal was rejected on 18/19.5.2006. The petitioner has preferred a review petition against the same and has now filed the present writ petition. In the reply filed, the respondents have concentrated more on the fact that the responsibility of the petitioner was fixed after conducting due enquiry, holding responsible for abnormal storage losses. Nothing much is stated about the legal issue raised by the petitioner, except for saying that there were two different articles of charges, which prompted the disciplinary authority to impose penalty, as was directed and this was strictly in accordance CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19910 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: with the provisions as contained in the Staff Regulations. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to judgement in the case of R.S.Panwar Vs. Food Corporation of India and others, 2010(2) PLR 765, where this Court has dealt with the identical issue, holding that major and minor punishments were imposed in amalgam, which would not be legally permissible. In this case also, the penalty of demotion was imposed on the petitioner therein besides directing recovery of `50,000/-. This Court has considered the issue in light of some of the judgements and thereafter has taken a view that major and minor penalties imposed in amalgam will not be legally permissible. This view has been taken on the basis of ratio of law laid down in Union of India Vs. S.C.Parashar, 2006(3) SCC 167. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.C.Parashar's case (supra) has held as under:- “The penalty imposed upon the respondent is an amalgam of minor penalty and major penalty. The respondent has been inflicted with three penalties: (1) reduction to the minimum of the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect; (2) loss of seniority; and (3) recovery of 25% of the loss incurred by the Government to the tune of Rs.74,341-89p i.e. Rs.18,585-47p. On account of damage to the Gypsy in 18 (eighteen) equal monthly instalments. Whereas reduction of timescale of pay with cumulative effect is a major penalty within the meaning of clause (v) of Rule 11 of the CCS Rules, loss of seniority and recovery of amount CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19910 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: would come within the purview of minor penalty, as envisaged by clauses (iii) and (iii)(a) thereof. The disciplinary authority, therefore, in our opinion acted illegally and without jurisdiction in imposing both minor and major penalties by the same order. Such a course of action could not have been taken in law.” This Court in R.S.Panwar's case (Supra), has accordingly held as under:- “Though informally worded, but recovery of Rs.50,000/- as a compensation for the loss caused is a minor penalty under Regulation 54 of the F.C.I. Regulations which authorises recovery of loss or part of loss. Reduction to lower stage in time scale is a major penalty under said Regulation 54. Thus, major and minor punishments were imposed in amalgam which would not be legally permissible as per the above referred ratio of law in S.C.Parashar's case (supra).” Two Special Leave Petitions were filed against the order passed in R.S.Panwar's case (supra) but both have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Copies of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were placed before the Court during the course of arguments. In view of the above, it is held that major and minor penalties can not be imposed together. One of the penalty, therefore, can not be sustained. This writ petition is disposed of with a direction that minor CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19910 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: penalty of recovery of `50,000/- is not sustainable and is accordingly set-aside. The major penalty of reversion, as ordered by the Disciplinary Authority would be legally in order and would stand. May 23,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE