CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20082 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 01, 2011 Ram Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS Food Corporation of India 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. V. S. Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Jaishree Thakur, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is an employee of Food Corporation of India and has filed this writ petition to impugn the punishment finally standing against him of reduction in time scale of pay of AGII(D) to the minimum for a period of two years. After the expiry of the penalty period, the petitioner was to start earning the increment from the reduced stage of pay. The petitioner was working as A.G.II(D) in Food Corporation of India and was posted at District Moga. He was served CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20082 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: a charge sheet on 17.10.2003 for certain omission and commission while he was working as A.G.III (D), Baghapurana, during the year 2001. The allegation against the petitioner was that he did not discharge his duty with absolute integrity and due devotion by not preserving paddy stock properly and not taking remedial measures, which resulted into deterioration of paddy. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet and mainly pleaded that his duty was to assist his superiors and he was never the custodian of the paddy in question. Considering the reply filed, the Enquiry Officer was detailed to conduct the enquiry. The petitioner states that this enquiry was conducted in a slipshod manner and he was imposed a punishment of reversion from the post of A.G.II(D) to A.G.III(D) at the initial stage of pay till superannuation. On an appeal, the punishment was reduced to what has been noted above. The petitioner filed a review, which was rejected and accordingly he has filed the present writ petition to challenge the punishment awarded on him. Reply is filed on behalf of the respondent-FCI. In the reply, the respondents have justified the punishment, which has been imposed on the petitioner after holding due enquiry. It is stated that the representation submitted by the petitioner was examined in depth. The enquiry was conducted fairly, giving several opportunities to the petitioner to present his case but the petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry report was accordingly submitted and on the basis of finding given by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has been awarded the impugned penalty. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20082 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: The primary grievance of the petitioner is that he was not the custodian of the stock and his deployment was withdrawn with effect from December 1998. The respondents, however, would dispute this fact and would point out that the petitioner was holding the charge of the stock till 8.2.1999. The FCI has suffered loss on account of negligence of the petitioner. The petitioner was given chance to prove his innocence but he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. As per the material on record, even though the deployment of the petitioner was withdrawn on 30.1.1999 but he continued to be custodian of the stock till 8.2.1999. Accordingly, the petitioner was found responsible for holding the charge of the paddy stock alongwith other custodians, who were also penalised by the competent authority. The review application filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submissions before me. He would refer to some investigation report, where it is observed that the petitioner could not be directly held responsible as per the norms. Prior to this, the petitioner had been held guilty and responsible. He was to prove all these aspects before the Enquiry Officer, which he failed to do. The petitioner otherwise has conceded that he was given opportunity but he did not participate in the enquiry. Once the enquiry has been held in a fair and proper manner, giving opportunity to the petitioner, where he did not participate and accordingly the punishment was awarded on the basis of finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the same can not be interfered on the basis of any finding, which may have been CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20082 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: subsequently recorded by any officer. The submission that the other persons responsible were let off lightly is not made out from the record placed before me. The respondents have disclosed the punishment imposed on various other persons found responsible and it is almost in consonance with the responsibility of each officer. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the punishment imposed on the petitioner. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. March 01, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE