[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar vs Food Corporation Of India & Ors on 21 May, 2025
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 21.05.2025
+ W.P.(C) 6478/2010
RAJ KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Uddhav Pratap and Mr. Vijay
K. Kaushal, Advocates.
versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Deepak Dewan and Ms.
Muskan Dewan Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
petitioner assails orders passed against him in disciplinary proceedings
arising out of a chargesheet dated 07/15.10.2003, including the orders of
the Disciplinary Authority dated 16.11.2005, the Appellate Authority
dated 22/27.06.2006, and the Reviewing Authority dated 29.03.2007.
A. FACTS:
2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade III (Depot) in the
respondent–Food Corporation of India [“FCI”] on 13.12.1976. He was
promoted to the post of Assistant Grade II (Depot) on 05.11.1994.
3. The disciplinary proceedings concern a period when the petitioner
was posted as Assistant Grade II in FCI, Food Storage Depot [“FSD”] at
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:21.05.2025 W.P.(C) 6478/2010 Page 1 of 15
19:43:48
Faridabad. A chargesheet was issued to him on 07/15.10.2003 on the
following Article of Charge:
“That Shri Raj Kumar, AG. II (D) now AG.III(D), while working as
such at FSD Faridabad in Distt. Gurgaon during the year 2001-02
failed to maintain absolute integrity and due devotion to his allotted
duties, in so much so that huge shortages/misappropriation of wheat
stocks besides other irregularities were observed.
He is thus found of negligent conduct causing loss to the Corporation
deliberately for his ulterior motives, contravening thereby Regulation
31, 32 & 32 A of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971.”
4. The imputation of charge, annexed to the Chargesheet, stated that
huge shortages/misappropriation of wheat stocks had been noticed,
besides other major irregularities alleged to have been committed by the
petitioner, in connivance with other employees. A committee of four Area
Managers had inquired into the matter and found a huge shortage to the
tune of 1846-85-282 Qtls. A shortage of gunny bales was also noticed,
pursuant to which it was contended that the petitioner was involved in
misappropriation.
5. An inquiry was held jointly in respect of four employees, viz., Mr.
D.P. Gupta, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Mr. Sultan Singh, and the
petitioner. After examination of witnesses for the management, and
granting opportunity of cross-examination, the Inquiry Officer recorded
the statements of the Charged Officers, including the petitioner. The
charge was held to be proved.
6. The petitioner submitted a representation against the Inquiry
Report; however, it is unnecessary to discuss the same in detail, as the
arguments in the writ petition have been confined to the question of parity
with the punishment imposed upon Mr. Sultan Singh and Mr. Sanjeev
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:21.05.2025 W.P.(C) 6478/2010 Page 2 of 15
19:43:48
Kumar Sharma. While the petitioner was subjected to the penalty of
compulsory retirement, forfeiture of gratuity, and recovery of the sum of
Rs. 5,00,000/- as penalty, Mr. Sultan Singh was awarded the penalty of
‘Censure’ and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/-, whereas Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
was only subjected to a reduction of pay by one increment with
cumulative effect.
B. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
7. I have heard Mr. Uddhav Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Mr. Deepak Dewan, learned counsel for FCI.
8. Mr. Pratap has taken me through the report of the Inquiry Officer,
in which it is stated that the petitioner was the Silo-in-charge, Faridabad,
whereas Mr. Sultan Singh was the Assistant Manager (Depot). Both the
said employees, alongwith Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Technical
Assistant Grade I, who was also in charge of the Silo, are stated by PW-
2/Mr. Harish Kumar, Assistant Manager (General), to have been
primarily responsible for the loss. Mr. Pratap submitted that perusal of the
disciplinary orders against the petitioner, when compared to the orders
passed against Mr. Sultan Singh and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, would
show that broadly similar allegations were made against all three
employees, but a far more grievous penalty has been imposed upon the
petitioner. Mr. Pratap cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in State
of U.P. v. Raj Pal Singh1, and Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P.2, and the
1
(2010) 5 SCC 783, (hereinafter “Raj Pal Singh”).
2
(2013) 3 SCC 73, (hereinafter, “Rajendra Yadav”).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:21.05.2025 W.P.(C) 6478/2010 Page 3 of 15
19:43:48
decision of this Court in Punjab & Sindh Bank v. Raj Kumar3 in support
of his contentions.
9. Mr. Dewan, on the other hand, first submitted that the petition is
barred by delay and laches, having been filed only in October 2010, more
than three years after the disciplinary proceedings came to a close with
the order of the Reviewing Authority dated 29.03.2007.
10. On merits, Mr. Dewan submitted that the orders of the Disciplinary
Authority in the cases of the other officers make it clear that it was the
petitioner who was Silo-in-charge, and the role played by him was
distinguishable from the role played by the other charged officers. He
drew my attention to the finding in the order against Mr. Sultan Singh
that his punishment was reduced only because he was on the verge of
retirement, and the order against Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, that he had,
in effect, been exploited by the petitioner herein.
11. In rejoinder, on the question of delay and laches, Mr. Pratap cited
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. v. State of
H.P. & Ors.4
C. ANALYSIS:
(a) Re: Delay and laches
12. Turning first to the question of delay and laches, it may be noted
that the disciplinary order dated 16.11.2005 was first challenged by the
petitioner in appeal and review under the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971.
These culminated in orders dated 22/27.06.2006 and 29.03.2007. The writ
petition was, however, filed more than three years thereafter, supported
3
(2024) SCCOnline Del 6431 [hereinafter, “Punjab & Sindh Bank v. Raj Kumar“].
4
(2022) 7 SCC 508 [hereinafter, “Sukh Dutt”].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:21.05.2025 W.P.(C) 6478/2010 Page 4 of 15
19:43:48
by an affidavit dated 07.09.2010. The issue regarding delay was noted in
the first order of the Court, dated 24.09.2010, and the petitioner was
granted liberty to file an application explaining the delay. CM APPL.
19704/2010 was thereafter filed for this purpose. By an order dated
18.03.2013, the writ petition was admitted, leaving open the question of
delay.
13. To explain a delay of over three years, the petitioner has averred as
follows, stating that he had certain medical issues during the relevant
period:
“5. That it is humbly submitted that as there being no time limit for filing
the writ petition and it may be filed within a reasonable time if the entire
situations are normal though the reasonable time is also not defined.
However, it is just for avoiding any controversy in the present case of the
petitioner, had there been the normal situation, then the reasonable time
for filing the writ petition for him could be presumed to have been the
end of July, 2007. But because of his illness as explained above, the
petitioner is undergoing treatments from 21.7.2007 onwards and the writ
petition could not be filed which however, could be filed only on
15.9.2010 before this Hon’ble Court after the delay of 1110 days if it is
reckoned from the August, 2008 to 15.9.2010 the date of filing this writ
petition.”
14. Alongwith CM APPL. 19704/2010, the petitioner, however, has
only filed a single medical certificate dated 02.10.2010, according to
which he was being treated from May 2007 for obesity, diabetes mellitus,
anxiety neurosis, and depressive neurosis. It was stated that he was
advised to get treatment and expert consultation.
15. While the law does not stipulate any strict period of limitation for
invocation of constitutional remedies, the judgments of the Supreme
Court require the Court to ensure that writs are not issued in respect of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:21.05.2025 W.P.(C) 6478/2010 Page 5 of 15
19:43:48
belated and stale claims5. The judgments in T.T. Murali Babu and R.K.
Zalpuri both flow from orders of termination of employment, which were
challenged four to five years later. The period is, thus, comparable to the
period of delay in the present case. In both cases, the Court held, on an
examination of the explanation offered, that the writ ought not to have
been entertained.
16. Mr. Pratap referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sukh
Dutt on the point of delay. In that case, the Supreme Court rejected a plea
of delay and laches in a case involving acquisition of the petitioner’s
lands without compensation. In the context of protection of private
property from State expropriation, the Court rejected the State’s argument
of delay in the “specific factual matrix”. While doing so, the Court cited
its earlier judgment in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation6, which specifically distinguished such cases
from service jurisprudence, where the doctrine of delay and laches has
been held to apply. The judgment in Sukh Dutt is thus distinguishable.
The present case concerns the same factual context involved in T.T.
Murali Babu and R.K. Zalpuri, which must therefore be followed.
17. The explanation for delay in the present case is inadequate. The
petitioner, even when he was given a specific opportunity by order dated
29.04.2010 to explain the delay of three years and six months, has not
filed any contemporaneous medical records, but only a doctor’s
certificate issued after the date of the said order. The said certificate also
5
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108,
paragraphs 16, 17 [hereinafter, “T.T. Murali Babu”].
State of J&K v. R.K. Zalpuri, (2015) 15 SCC 602, paragraphs 26-28 [hereinafter, “RK Zalpuri”].
6
(2013) 1 SCC 353.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:21.05.2025 W.P.(C) 6478/2010 Page 6 of 15
19:43:48
does not clearly indicate that the petitioner was disabled for such a long
period, from managing his own affairs in any way, including engaging
counsel and instituting a challenge to the disciplinary orders. I am thus
unable to accept the petitioner’s explanation for the belated filing of this
writ petition, and hold that the petition is barred by delay and laches.
(b) Re: Parity of penalty on petitioner qua other Charged Officers:
18. While it is not necessary, in view of the above findings, to
adjudicate the petitioner’s contentions on merits, I have heard learned
counsel for the parties on merits also. Having regard to the fact that the
impugned orders are far-reaching, inasmuch as the petitioner was
dismissed from employment, and the fact that this writ petition has been
pending for the last fifteen years, I consider it appropriate to consider the
petitioner’s challenge on merits also.
19. As noted above, the only question urged by Mr. Pratap was with
regard to the petitioner’s claim of parity with Mr. Sultan Singh and Mr.
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma. The judgments of the Supreme Court and of this
Court, which deal with claims of parity in penalty proceedings, are
predicated upon substantial identity in the charges and findings against
the employees in question. All the judgments cited by Mr. Pratap- Raj Pal
Singh, Rajendra Yadav, and the Division Bench decision of this Court in
Punjab & Sindh Bank v. Raj Kumar proceed on this basis.
20. In order to examine the present case from this perspective, the
following factors are of relevance:
A. A committee was constituted to investigate shortage of wheat
stocks stored in silos. Both the petitioner and Mr. Sultan Singh,
who was the Assistant Manager, were stated to be unable toSignature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:21.05.2025 W.P.(C) 6478/2010 Page 7 of 15
19:43:48
explain the shortage in the wheat stock of the crop year 1998. The
Committee, constituted by the then District Manager, FCI, vide its
report dated 21.08.2002, observed that wheat had been
misappropriated, for which Mr. Sultan Singh, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
Sharma, and the petitioner, were all responsible. The Committee
relied for this purpose upon a statement of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
Sharma and came to the conclusion as follows:
“Hence all the misappropriation / pilferage has been caused
by the concerned silo Incharge Sh. Raj Kumar, AG.II(D) in
connivance with Sh. Sultan Singh, AM(D) by mixing various
types of gunnies before handing over the same to Incharge
DSA who remarked unaccountable position in his gunny
Register duly signed by the AM(D), Faridabad. The committee
has observed the numerous cuttings and overwriting in the
gunnies Register which proves the point. Annexure J to J-8.
The empty Silo bins were refilled with wheat 2002-03
after clear certification by concerned incharge i.e. Shri Raj
Kumar, aG.II(D) and Sh. Sultan Singh, AM(D), Sh. Mulk Raj,
AM(QC) and AM(E/M) Sh. Autar Singh besides Sh. D.P.Gupta,
AM(QC). Hence leaving no change of any left over wheat in the
concerned bins, Photostat copy enclosed as Annexure K to K-
2.”7
B. The Chargesheet dated 07/15.10.2003, issued to the petitioner, was
based upon the aforesaid Committee Report. After issuance of the
Chargesheet, an inquiry was held against all three officers. The
principal witness on behalf of the Management was Mr. Harish
Kumar, Assistant Manager, who was a member of the Committee.
His evidence was that all three officers in question (Mr. Sultan
Singh, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, and the petitioner) were
primarily responsible. In cross-examination by the petitioner’s
Defence Assistant, the witness accepted that certain documents
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:21.05.2025 W.P.(C) 6478/2010 Page 8 of 15
19:43:48
bore the signature of Mr. Sultan Singh and not of the petitioner, but
ultimately stood by the report of the Committee.
C. The evidence of another member of the Committee, Mr. R.K.
Verma (PW-3), was also on the same lines. However, in cross-
examination by the Defence Assistant to Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
Sharma, he specifically stated that the Charged Officer (Mr.
Sharma) could not be held responsible for the shortage of
foodgrains in the Silo, but for the number of gunnies found short.
D. After recording the statements of the Charged Officers, the Inquiry
Officer, vide Report dated 21.04.2005, came to the following
conclusions, as against the petitioner:
“In view of the above discussions in the foregoing paras,
documents placed on record and taking a rational view of the
facts and circumstances of the case taking the pleadings
forwarded by the CO it has been found that CO has not been
able to prove his innocence about huge
shortages/misappropriation of wheat stocks and it has been
proved that the CO had been using gunnies on his own and no
statement/record has been placed to co-relate such
consumption with the entries of his non/requisition provided to
DSA Incharge on day to day basis. Since some of the points
concerning involvement of the CO to have plying two trucks
and conniving with the MLC will require further investigation
if warranted in the case by the competent authority but the
analysis is based only on the allegations in the article of
charges framed against the co that he had failed to maintain
absolute integrity and due devotion to his allotted duties
causing huge shortage and other irregularities as in case of
shortage of gunnies which has been proved in the foregoing
paras.
In view of the above, the charge leveled against the CO stand
proved.”
7
Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:21.05.2025 W.P.(C) 6478/2010 Page 9 of 15
19:43:48
E. The Disciplinary Authority considered the petitioner’s
representation against the Inquiry Report and came, inter alia, to
the finding that the petitioner, in connivance with other charged
officers, used gunnies in operation of stocks without giving
receipts to the concerned officer. The petitioner’s challenge to the
statement of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma has also been rejected.
The roles of the petitioner, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, and Mr.
Sultan Singh have been dealt with as follows:
” The lapses on the part of the CO are clearly identified
in the Inquiry Report. The economic cost of wheat of crop
year 1998-99 was Rs.800.34 per qtl. as certified by Regional
Finance and therefore, for wheat alone a loss of Rs.14,77,430/-
has been caused. The COs namely Shri Raj Kumar and Shri
Sanjeev Kumar are also responsible for huge
shortages/misappropriation in stocks of gunnies and hence,
the total loss caused by them to the Corporation amounts to
more than Rs. 17 Lac. Though it is a fact that for these losses,
Shri Raj Kumar, AG.II(D) is primary responsible, who might
have been doing the misappropriations by creating a gang
like situation in the depot but the working of Sh. Sanjeev
Kumar was also not proper. The controlling officer of the
COs Shri Sultan Singh, the then AM(D) who was also one of
the COs in this case had stated that he lodged complaints
against Sh. Raj Kumar with Distt. Manager about the high
handedness of Sh. Raj Kumar vide letter dated 21.5.2002.
Shri Sultan Singh, then then AM(D) had also asserted that
the working of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Incharge DSA was not
proper because he used to remain away due to sports activities
though he continued working as the Incharge DSA. From the
facts of the case as already narrated above, it is clear that
primary responsibility lies with Shri Raj Kumar.
Now comes the question of the penalty. I am fully
convinced about the malafide and mischief played by Shri Raj
Kumar in misappropriating the FCI stocks and stores and
therefore, requires imposition of a harsh penalty. It is only
because of the actions of such unscrupulous persons that bad
name is being brought to the Corporation and people are
losing faith in Govt. institutions.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:21.05.2025 W.P.(C) 6478/2010 Page 10 of 15
19:43:48
This is high time that this situation needs to be
corrected and such unscrupulous people who indulge in
malafide actions are shown door. Therefore, a penalty as
specified hereunder is imposed upon Shri Raj Kumar.
Now, therefore, the undersigned by virtue of powers
conferred under Regulation 56 read with Regulation 54 of FCI
(Staff) Regulations, 1971, hereby impose upon him a penalty of
Compulsory Retirement from the services of the Corporation
alongwith recovery of Rs. 5.0 Lacs (Five Lacs only) from his
retirement dues/other benefits which can be adjusted as per
rules. The entire amount of gratuity which is payable to him
is ordered to be forfeited under the provisions of Section 4(6)
(a) of payments of Gratuity Act, 1972 to partially indemnify
the losses suffered by the Corporation and will be adjusted
towards the recovery of Rs.5 (Five Lacs only).
A copy of this order is being placed in his CR Dossier.”8
F. As far as Mr. Sultan Singh is concerned, he was the Assistant
Manager of the FSD-Faridabad at the relevant time. His contention
was that the petitioner was solely responsible for the losses in
stocks of wheat, and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and the petitioner
were responsible for the shortage of gunnies. The findings against
him, in a disciplinary order dated 24/25.06.2005, are as follows:
“On examination of reply it is observed that reply of the CO is
not convincing. He has tried to shift the responsibility on the
shed lncharge and gummy Incharge. However he has not
disputed the fact that there was shortage/misappropriation of
the stocks/gunnies. He has tried to defend himself by saying
that his duties were only administrative in nature. If we accept
his plea then where is the need of posting an AM(D) in the
depot. Depot could have been run by the class III officials
alone. In fact, the CO has failed miserably in supervision of
the depot affairs which has led to observance of huge
shortage/misappropriation of stocks and gunnies besides
many other irregularities. In fact such huge irregularities
can’t happen without direct/covert connivance of the AM(D).
Non submission of defence brief also shows his careless nature.
The plea of CO regarding losses due to moisture loss,8
Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:21.05.2025 W.P.(C) 6478/2010 Page 11 of 15
19:43:48
infestation, dust are also far fetched. Keeping in view the losses
occurred in the last 10 years, there is negligible quantitative
loss due to these factors and overall the position should be at
par by taking some quantitative gain in wheat even after taking
into account the storage period. In fact a quantity of 1846
Qtls. Was misappropriated due to ineffective
supervision/connivance of the CO and huge discrepancies in
gunnies were also observed for which CO is definitely
responsible.
Such lapses on the part of C.O. should have resulted
in imposition of a major penalty on the C.O. but because of
the fact that he is retiring on 30.06.2005, a minor penalty is
being considered. The economic cost of wheat of Crop Year
1998-99 was Rs.800.34 per qtls. as certified by Regional
Finance and therefore, for wheat alone a loss of Rs.14,77,430/-
has been caused. He is also responsible for huge
shortages/misappropriation on stocks of gunnies and hence, the
total loss caused by him to the Corporation amounts to more
than Rs.17 lac. Though it is a fact that for these losses, Shri
Raj Kumar, AG II(D) is primarily responsible, who might
have been doing the misappropriations before the C.O. joined
the Depot but 8 months period was sufficient enough for him
to unearth the misappropriations/shortages on the part of
Shri Raj Kumar. C.O. has stated that he lodged complaints
against Shri Raj Kumar with Distt. Manager about the high
handedness of Sh. Raj Kumar vide letter dated 21.5.2002 and
on the basis of this letter =he claimed his disassociation with
Shri Raj Kumar. C.O. has also asserted that the working of Shri
Sanjeev Kumar, In-charge DSA was not proper because he
used to remain absent due to sports activities though C.O.
himself has admitted that he did not change the In-charge DSA.
From the facts of the case as already narrated above, it is
clear that primary responsibility lies with Shri Raj Kumar but
the C.O. Shri Sultan Singh, AM(D) being a Supervisory
Officer of the Depot could not escape from his responsibility.
It seems instead of holding the bull by its horns in tackling
the gang like situation at the centre during that period, he
chose to merely write a letter. He had freedom to change the
custodians of stocks/gunnies and if OM was coming in his way,
he should have taken up the matter with R.O. Because of his
supervisory lapses, FCI was put to huge losses. Therefore,
keeping in view the fact that C.O. is going to retire on 30.6.05,
it would be fair enough on our part to recover of these losses
from him.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:21.05.2025 W.P.(C) 6478/2010 Page 12 of 15
19:43:48
Now, therefore, the undersigned by virtue of powers
conferred under Regulation 56 read with Regulation 54 of
FCI(Staff) Regulations, 1971, hereby imposes a penalty of
‘Censure’ and a recovery of Rs.1 lacs to partially indemnify the
Corporation against the losses suffered by it.
A copy of this order is being placed in his C.R.
Dossier.9″
G. The disciplinary order dated 16.11.2005 against Sanjeev Kumar
Sharma, finds as follows:
“Shri Sanjeev Kumar is responsible for huge
shortages/misappropriation in stocks of gunnies. Though, it is
a fact that for these losses, Shri Raj Kumar, AG 11(0) is
primary responsible, who might has been doing the
misappropriations by creating a gang like situation in the
depot but the working of Shri Sanjeev Kumar was also not
proper. The controlling officer of the COs Shri Sultan Singh,
the then AM(D) who was also one of the COs in this case had
stated that he lodged complaints against Shri Raj Kumar with
Distt. Manager about the high handedness of Shri Raj Kumar
vide letter dated 21.05.2002. Shri Sultan Singh, the then AM(D)
had also asserted that the working of Shri Sanjeev Kumar,
Incharge DSA was not proper because he used to remain away
due to sports activities though he continued working as the
Incharge DSA. From the facts of the case as already narrated
above, it is clear that primary responsibility lies with Shri Raj
Kumar but the other C.O. Shri Sanjeev Kumar can also not
be absolved from his responsibility. Though, it is admitted that
Shri Sanjeev Kumar used to remain away due to his sports
activities and all the mishappenings/mischieves were played
by Shri Raj Kumar only yet when a specific job was allotted to
Shri Sanjeev Kumar, he should have given proper time and
attention to the assigned work. Though no malafide can be
attributed to Shri Sanjeev Kumar yet he is responsible for his
carelessness.
There is no doubt that Shri Sanjeev Kumar has been a Ranji
Trophy Player and has been recruited under Sports Quota. No
malafides have been proved against him by the 1.0. The CO has
placed relevant orders allowing him to relieve in the afternoon
for practice purposes both by Zonal Office(N) and FCI,
Headquarters and he has also placed his participation in the9
Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:21.05.2025 W.P.(C) 6478/2010 Page 13 of 15
19:43:48
Cricket Championship on record. However, he has been
negligent in his duties as he recorded use of gunnies, which
were consumed in his absence without any requisition and even
when he was not in the depot. Though he claimed during his
personal hearing that he used to inform about the realities to
his superior but he has not produced any document in support
of his visit. He is no doubt a sportsman and is not very well
conversant with the office procedures but once he has been
recruited in the organization, he is supposed to learn the office
working. This situation could have been exploited by Shri Raj
Kumar, AG II(D) who is known to be a notorious person
which has even been alleged by his supervisory officer Shri
Sultan Singh, the then AM(D). Therefore, the ends of the
justice would be met by the imposition of a major penalty as
specified hereunder.
Now, therefore, the undersigned by virtue of powers
conferred under Regulation 56 read with Regulation 54 of
FCI(Staff) Regulations, 1971, hereby impose upon him a
penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.”10
21. A comparison of the three disciplinary orders clearly shows that it
is the petitioner who has been held to be the kingpin of the transactions
which gave rise to the disciplinary proceedings. Mr. Sultan Singh has
certainly been held guilty of inadequate supervision, but a minimal
penalty was imposed upon him, in consideration of his impending
retirement. All three disciplinary orders recognise the role of the
petitioner as being “primarily responsible” for the situation and, in fact,
as creating a gang-like situation in the Depot. The role of Mr. Sanjeev
Kumar Sharma has been clearly found to be much more limited than the
role ascribed to the petitioner. While Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma has
been blamed for inadequate attention to his duties, it has been specifically
held that no mala fides are attributed to him. The petitioner has clearly10
Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:21.05.2025 W.P.(C) 6478/2010 Page 14 of 15
19:43:48
been held responsible to a higher degree, and the penalty imposed upon
him is, therefore, higher.
22. The case of Mr. Sultan Singh also proceeds on a slightly different
reasoning, with regard to his imminent retirement. The correctness of the
findings against him, or whether the consideration of his impending
retirement was justified, are not the subject matter of the challenge in this
petition, to which he is not even a party. The only question is whether the
petitioner is entitled to imposition of a lower penalty on grounds of parity
with him. Suffice it to say, the petitioner’s case was materially different
on many counts, including the merits of the allegations found against
him.
23. In the present case, on a comparison of the findings against the
petitioner with the findings recorded against the officers with whom he
claims parity [viz., Mr. Sultan Singh or Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma], I
find no justification for this claim. No other argument was advanced to
assail the impugned orders, particularly with regard to the quantum of
penalty. The petition therefore fails on merits, also.
D. CONCLUSIONS:
24. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, both on the
ground of delay/laches, and on merits.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MAY 21, 2025
‘Bhupi/SS/Jishnu’/
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:21.05.2025 W.P.(C) 6478/2010 Page 15 of 15
19:43:48
[ad_2]
Source link