IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 25070 of 1999 Between: Abdul Nayeem, S/o Late Sri Abdul Aziz, Food Corporation of India, F.S.D., Sanatnagar, Hyderabad-18. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Officer, Hyderabad-500 004. 2 The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Dist.Officer, Tilak Gardens, Nizamabad-503 003. 3 The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Srikakulam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records, examine the matter thoroughly and issue a Writ particularly in the nature of Mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction to the respondents in order to withdraw the punishment of reduction of the pay of the petitioner to the minimum of Rs.1230-00 of the time scale of Watchmen Rs.1230-35-1440-45-1755 contained in the Order No.V & S 4/1/93 dt:28-2-1995 of the District Manager, Srikakulam as arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional and restore the pay of the petitioner or pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHD YOUSUFUDDIN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.B.ANJANEYULU The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner, a Watchman in the service of the Food Corporation of India, challenges the imposition of the punishment of reduction of pay under order No.V&S 4/1/93 dated 28-2-1995 passed by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Srikakulam. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for addressing a postcard using unparliamentary and objectionable language to the officers of the Food Corporation of India. It is the case of the petitioner that no specific charges were framed against him and no enquiry was conducted in accordance with law, but he was visited with the harsh punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum of the time scale, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent/Food Corporation of India, supported by a set of material papers, indicates that disciplinary proceedings were initiated and conducted as per due procedure. It is specifically averred that the charge memo dated 4-11- 1993 along with enclosures was served on the petitioner and the same was acknowledged by him on 11-11-1993. Thereafter, under Order No.V & S 4/1/93 dated 6-4-1994 one Sri A.N.Phillips, Assistant Manager, (IA&PV), District Office, Food Corporation of India, Kakinada was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charge framed against the petitioner. The said Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 07-12-1994 holding that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner through memo dated 16-1-1995 and was acknowledged by him on 21-1- 1995. A reading of the said enquiry report clearly demonstrates that the petitioner participated in the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer and readily agreed with the Presenting Officer that he had written the postcard which was the very basis for the initiation of the disciplinary action. The Enquiry Officer also observed that the petitioner did not seek to adduce any documentary or oral evidence to rebut the charge leveled against him and he did not choose to cross examine the witnesses. While holding that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved, the Enquiry Officer however thought it fit to observe that the mental condition of the petitioner was quite wretched. Perhaps, taking into account this aspect and overlooking the seriousness of the charge held proved against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority imposed upon the petitioner the relatively lighter penalty of reducing his pay to the minimum of the time scale under the order dated 28-2-1995. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Hyderabad, who is the appellate authority, under his letter dated 11-11-1997. A copy of the said letter is filed in the material papers by the learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation. The same would show that the petitioner did not choose to raise any grounds with regard to the alleged defects in the enquiry process or in the issuance of the charge sheet. He merely requested the appellate authority to consider his case sympathetically and stated that he would work obediently and sincerely without recurrence of mistakes. The appellate authority appears to have given a personal hearing to the petitioner on 30-10-1998 to make additional submissions upon his appeal petition. Having heard the petitioner in person on the said date, the appellate authority, by order dated 15-2-1999, dismissed the appeal confirming the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. The said order was communicated to the petitioner and was acknowledged by him on 22-2- 1999. It appears that the petitioner earlier filed a Writ Petition before this Court, being W.P.No.3308 of 1999, stating that his appeal had not been disposed of. The said writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage by order dated 29- 4-1999, directing the respondent Corporation to dispose of the appeal within two months, if not already disposed of. Needless to state, by the time of the passing of above order, the petitioner was well aware of the dismissal of his appeal as is evidenced by his acknowledgment dated 22-2- 1999, accepting the receipt of the order of the appellate authority. Sri Md.Yousufuddin, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner were not according to law and the procedure prescribed has not been followed by the respondent Corporation. He argued that the petitioner, being a poor and illiterate Watchman, was not aware of his rights and could not, therefore, agitate his grievance with regard to the procedural lapses, in the appeal filed by him before the Corporation. He contended that the petitioner was not issued with the charge sheet and was not given a proper opportunity of participating in the enquiry proceedings. He therefore submitted that this is a fit case where a de novo enquiry should be initiated against the petitioner. Per contra, Sri B.Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel appearing for the Food Corporation of India, submitted that the record placed before this Court clearly demonstrates that necessary care was taken to adhere to the due procedure at every stage and that the petitioner, being well aware of the proceedings at every stage, cannot be permitted now to challenge the same. He pointed out that the petitioner had been served with the charge sheet and the enquiry report as is clearly evidenced by his acknowledgment thereof. The learned Counsel also drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings and admitted his guilt in so far as writing the post card containing the unparliamentary language is concerned. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the petitioner failed to raise any of the grounds urged before this Court in the appeal filed by him and could not therefore be permitted at this late stage to raise such grounds. Though Sri Md.Yousufuddin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued that the signatures of the petitioner in the acknowledgments were not that of his client, this Court cannot embark upon a roving enquiry into such disputed questions of fact. The record, as it stands, reveals that the Food Corporation of India followed all the procedural norms in initiating and holding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner has not denied that he participated in the enquiry proceedings. That being so, his admission of having addressed the post card containing the unparliamentary language clinches the issue and cannot be brushed aside lightly. In the appeal filed by him also, the petitioner failed to raise any grounds with regard to any procedural lapses. The scope for interference by this Court in disciplinary matters in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. This Court would not sit in appeal over the decision of the disciplinary authority but would only review the decision making process. In the present case except for bald allegations, unsupported by proof or material, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case that there was any lacuna in the decision making process. Having participated, without protest all through, in the disciplinary proceedings and having filed an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority, it is not open to the petitioner to ignore the same now and seek a de novo enquiry at this stage. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 12-06-2009 AMD/YVL