IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CASE NO.: LPA No.158 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION : 18 March,2009 Bikkar Singh .......Appellant versus Food Corporation of India and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the respondents. NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The appellant was appointed as Technical Assistant Grade III in the Food Corporation of India (in short `F.C.I.') on 27-10-1971. He was promoted to the post of Technical Assistant Grade-II w.e.f. 15-04-1976. The order of promotion was passed by the Zonal Manager (North), F.C.I., New Delhi. He was further promoted to the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I on 02-08-1983. This order was also passed by the Zonal Manager (North), F.C.I., New Delhi. However, he was reverted to the post of Technical Assistant Grade-II vide order dated 12-06-1985. His services were terminated vide order dated 01-07-1985 passed by the Zonal Manager (North), F.C.I., New Delhi-respondent No.2 under Regulations LPA No.158 of 2004 -2- 19(1) of the Staff Regulations, 1971. His order of termination was quashed by this Court vide order dated 17-07-1986. The petitioner filed contempt petition against the respondents. This Court issued a notice to the respondents on 24-10-1986. Respondents issued an order of re-instatement to the petitioner on 27-10-1986. He submitted his joining report on 30-10-1986. Thereafter, he was charge-sheeted on 14-11-1986. The appellant was found guilty of some of the charges as per the Enquiry Report dated 09-12-1987. On the basis of the enquiry report, Senior Regional Manager passed the order of dismissal vide order dated 23-02-1988. The appeal against the said order was also dismissed. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed the writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Bench vide order dated 23-02-2004. The main contention raised by Mr.G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate for the appellant, while challenging the impugned order of dismissal dated 23-02-1988 was that although various grounds were raised before the learned Single Judge, only one argument i.e. with respect to the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 to pass the order of punishment has been noticed and decided. We do not agree with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. It has been specifically noticed in the judgment dated 23-02-2004 as follows :- “ Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a solitary contention that the order of dismissal could not have been passed by an authority subordinate to the authority that has appointed the petitioner.” It is obvious that only one argument was raised. This is further LPA No.158 of 2004 -3- evident from the pleadings in the writ petition. Our attention was invited to para 22 of the Writ Petition, wherein, the main argument is only with respect to authority/jurisdiction of respondent No.3 to pass the order of punishment. It was further submitted that the dismissal order passed by the Senior Regional Manager and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority is malafide, in as much as the charge sheet was issued on 14-11-1986 i.e. within 15 days from the joining report submitted by the petitioner after re-instatement was ordered by this Court. We do not find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. This in, itself, is not sufficient for us to conclude that the order of dismissal is malafide. The order has been passed after following due procedure of Law and compliance of the rule of natural justice. Even the order of this Court vide which the order of termination was quashed, has not been placed on record. Neither the number of the writ petition nor the date of passing of the order by this Court has been mentioned in the writ petition. No specific allegation against any particular officer has been made. The allegations are vague and mere apprehensions. Learned counsel for the appellant did not raise any dispute to the findings recorded by learned Single Bench with respect to the Punishing Authority who passed the impugned order of dismissal, thereby, accepting the findings recorded on this issue by learned Single Bench. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merit. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE March 18, 2009 gurpreet