IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 365 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.10.2009. The Food Corporation of India and others ......Appellants Vs. Sadhu Singh,AG-III (Depot), FCI, FSD, Railway Siding, Khanna ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. G.S.Bal, Advocate, for the respondent. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. On 18.8.2009, following order was passed: “1. The appellants are aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge allowing writ petitions and quashing punishment of reversion of writ petitioners. 2. The writ petitioners were working in a godown of the appellants at Sirhind. Allegation was made that they embezzled wheat on 18.3.1984. FIR was lodged. After investigation, cancellation report was filed which was duly accepted. The departmental inquiry was also conducted by giving charge-sheet dated 6.11.1986. The Inquiry Officer vide report dated 29.9.1987, exonerated the writ petitioners. However, the Senior Regional Manager (Punjab) FCI disagreed with the finding of Inquiry Officer and on that basis passed the impugned order of LPA No. 365 of 2009 [2] reversion with a bar on future promotion vide order dated 19.2.1988, which has been set aside in the writ petition. 3. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition mainly on the following grounds: (i)The authority which passed the order was not competent and was lower in rank to the appointing authority and (ii) No opportunity was given to the writ petitioners to meet the points of disagreement with the findings in the enquiry report. 4. On point No.(i), learned counsel for the appellants refers to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in FCI and others v. Sone Lal [ 2005] 3 SCC 11 and submits that Senior Regional Manager was competent to impose punishment. With regard to point No. (ii), it is submitted that under the rules, it was not necessary to give opportunity and remedy of appeal was a forum available where the writ petitioners could get due opportunity. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.Jeevaratnam v. State of Madras AIR 1966 Supreme Court 951. Alternatively, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge should have given opportunity to the appellants to proceed with the matter after compliance of principles of natural justice from the appropriate stage in consonance with the law laid down in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc. etc. v. B.Karunakar etc. 1993 (4) SCC 727. 5. Notice of motion for 23.9.2009. Dasti only. 6. In the meanwhile, there will be stay of LPA No. 365 of 2009 [3] operation of impugned judgment. The appellants will be at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.Karunakar, supra, subject to further orders.” 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner is unable to dispute the alternative submission of liberty being given to the appellants to proceed afresh after compliance of principles of natural justice from the appropriate stage in accordance with law laid down in B.Karunakar (supra). As regards the issue of authority competent to pass order, learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that though appointing authority is Senior Regional Manager, appointment of writ petitioner was by Zonal Manager, as held by learned Single Judge and, therefore, judgment in Sone Lal, supra, is distinguishable. Learned counsel for the appellant states that factual position is same as in Sone Lal, supra and the same is verifiable from record. We are of the view that course of action, in this regard, should be as per factual position on record. 4. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and impugned order is modified to the extent that appellants will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, as mentioned above. It is clarified that if promotion of the respondent was by Senior Regional Manager, and not by Zonal Manager, as observed in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, appropriate authority will be the Senior Regional Manager. If the promotion was by the Zonal Manager, the authority will be the Zonal LPA No. 365 of 2009 [4] Manager. This fact can be verified by the appellants after giving hearing to the respondent. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) October 9, 2009 JUDGE raghav