IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10721 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 21.07.2009 Jaspal Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Food Corporation of India and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who was working as AG II (Depot) in the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation'), has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 14.6.2001 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Senior Regional Manager (respondent No.3 herein), whereby a penalty of reduction by 5 stages in the pay scale with cumulative effect was imposed under Regulation 56 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `the Regulations'); the order dated 20.2.2003 (Annexure P-7), whereby his appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Zonal Manager (North) (respondent No.2 herein) as Appellate Authority under Regulation 72 of the Regulations; as well as the order dated 25.5.2006 (Annexure P-9), whereby the review petition filed by CWP No. 10721 of 2009 -2- the petitioner under Regulation 74 of the Regulations has been dismissed by the Chairman & Managing Director (respondent No.1 herein). The petitioner has filed the instant petition after a delay of more than three years. The delay has not been explained. It appears that the petitioner has filed the instant petition after his retirement. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned orders. In the present case, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Regulation 58 of the Regulations on the charges of negligent conduct, malafide intention and being instrumental in causing pecuniary loss amounting to Rs. 7,24,619.16. After seeking reply to the charge sheet, which was not found satisfactory, the Enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted the enquiry, in which charges against the petitioner were proved. The copy of the Enquiry Report was supplied to the petitioner and he filed reply to the same. The disciplinary authority, after taking into consideration the charges, enquiry report and reply submitted by the petitioner, and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, imposed the penalty of reduction by 5 stages in the pay scale with cumulative effect. The said order has been upheld by the Appellate as well as the Reviewing authorities. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, I am of the opinion that in the departmental enquiry, each and every procedure, as provided under the Rules, has been followed and CWP No. 10721 of 2009 -3- full opportunity was provided to the petitioner to defend himself. In the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that charge against the petitioner has been proved. No procedural irregularity has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishing authority has acted discriminately, while imposing penalty of reduction by 5 stages in the pay scale with cumulative effect in case of the petitioner, whereas in case of other employees, lesser punishment was given. In my opinion, each case depends upon its facts and in the matter of imposing penalty, it is for the disciplinary authority to see as to what penalty is to be imposed under the Regulations. In case of imposing penalty, one cannot allege discrimination. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate and the Reviewing authorities have not properly appreciated all the pleas raised by the petitioner. After going through the orders passed by the Appellate and the Reviewing authorities, I am of the opinion that well reasoned speaking orders have been passed by both the authorities, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by considering all the points raised by him. It has also been argued that the allegations pertain to the year 1984-85, whereas the charge sheet was issued after a long period, therefore, the entire departmental proceedings and the action thereon are liable to be quashed on the ground of long delay in issuing the charge sheet. Concededly, no limitation has been prescribed for initiating disciplinary action against the CWP No. 10721 of 2009 -4- delinquent employee. In the departmental enquiry, allegations against the petitioner stand proved. Now, when the order of the punishing authority has been upheld by the Appellate and the Reviewing authorities, the order of penalty cannot be held to be illegal only on the ground that the charge sheet was issued after a long delay. The petitioner has not shown any prejudice caused to him due to the said delay. In these circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. Dismissed. July 21, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE