CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17674 OF 2005 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: April 29, 2008 Parties Name Raghbir Singh ..PETITIONER VERSUS The Food Corporation of India and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. C. PURI PRESENT: Mr. R.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.R.Takkar, Advocate, for FCI in CWP No. 13880 of 2006 Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate, for FCI in rest connected cases. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 17674, 17823 to 17828, 17862, 17841, 17843 to 17848, 17971, 17981, 18713, 19140, 17778 of 2005, 13880, 20051, 20086, 642, 2042 of 2006, 5046 and 284 of 2007 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these cases. For facility of dictating order, facts are being taken from CWP No. 17674 of 2005. The petitioner was working as Assistant Grade I (Depot), in Food Corporation of India, F.S.D. , Dhuri, District Sangrur. A show cause notice/ memorandum was issued to him on February 22, 2005, (P-1) to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17674 OF 2005 -2 impose minor penalty upon him. Besides that, two more show cause notices/memorandums (P-2 and P-3) were also issued to him for the above said purpose. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash regulation 54(iii) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971. It is grievance of the petitioner that vide show cause notices, referred to above, recovery for an amount of more than Rs. 1,00,000,00/- has been contemplated to be effected from him along with other employees, for some acts of omissions/ commissions comitted in the year 1982-83. At the time of arguments, it was contended by counsel for the petitioner that in this case, dispute is on facts and if opportunity is not given to the petitioner to produce evidence etc. , it will harm his interest. By taking note of the above fact, we asked Shri Hari Pal Verma, Advocate, to take up the matter with the authority and to get instructions as to whether in view of facts and circumstances of the case, as an exception, it will be possible to hold a regular departmental enquiry if the petitioner/ other employees desire(s). In response thereto, Shri Verma has put on record copy of the letter addressed by Deputy General Manager (Vigilance) to him. Relevant portion of the letter reads thus: “The matter was discussed in the chamber of General Manager (Punjab) in the presence of AGM (Legal) Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, accordingly it is informed that in case of charge sheets which are abnormally delayed if quantum of penalty would be more than three months salary of employee and if concerned CO insists for inquiry, Corporation has no objection for conducting the same under Regulation 60 of FCI (Staff), CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17674 OF 2005 -3 Regulations, 1971.” We are of the opinion that a very fair stand has been taken by the Food Corporation of India and in view of that, in all the cases, where show cause notices/ memorandum to impose minor penalty has been issued and the recovery amount involved is more than three months' salary of an employee, the Food Corporation of India will, on asking of that employee, will conduct a regular departmental enquiry and only thereafter punishment, if need be, will be imposed upon the employee concerned. We make it very clear that in all those cases, in which show cause notice has already been issued for imposition of major penalty, the Food Corporation of India will be at liberty to proceed further as per law in those cases. With a view to settle the controversy, we further direct that in all those cases, in which the employees have already filed their replies to the show cause notice/ memorandum, the authority shall convey its decision to proceed further in departmental enquiry, if need be, within a period of one month from today and in other cases, where replies have not yet been filed, the employee(s) concerned shall file the same within fifteen days from today and the authority shall convey its decision to institute regular enquiry or not within one month thereafter. If it is decided to hold regular departmental enquiry, the Corporation shall complete its evidence within a period of four months from the date, when order to hold regular enquiry is conveyed to the employee concerned. The employee concerned shall complete his evidence within a period of three months thereafter. On receipt of the enquiry report, the punishing authority, shall pass an appropriate order within two months thereafter. It is also made clear that all the employees will be at liberty to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17674 OF 2005 -4 raise objection re: jurisdiction or any other objection on facts or law before the punishing authority. It is further made clear that concession to hold regular departmental enquiry has been given on account of delay in instituting regular enquiry against the petitioners. Writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( K. C. Puri ) April 29, 2008. Judge DKC