Lakhwinder Singh v. The Food Corporation of India & Ors.

1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, an employee of the respondent no.1/Food Corporation of India, impugns the orders passed against him by the departmental authorities, the Disciplinary Authority dated 22.12.2001; Appellate Authority dated 3/5.12.2002 and the Reviewing Authority dated 12.7.2004, whereby penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner of reduction to the lower time scale of pay i.e from the post of AG-II(D) to AG- III (D) for a period of two years with a further direction that his pay will be 2015:DHC:2424 fixed at the stage of AG-III(D) as if he would not have been promoted to the post of AG-II(D). It is relevant to state that the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the penalty of dismissal from services upon the petitioner, and which was upheld by the Appellate Authority but the Reviewing Authority reduced the punishment to reduction of pay.

2. The charge against the petitioner was that he was posted at Malerkotla but was the custodian/joint custodian of wheat and paddy stocks at Amargarh during the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 but in failure of his duties he did not protect the paddy and wheat stocks from the vagaries of weather resulting in colossal loss to the respondent no.1/employer. Due to carelessness of the petitioner, alongwith the other persons who were also proceeded against with departmentally, there was loss to 1,88,130 quintals of paddy in 1997-98 and 17,250 quintals of wheat for the year 1998-99 on account of down-grading/deterioration of the said stock. Had the petitioner ensured proper maintenance, security and safety of stocks by adopting damage control measures and protected the stocks by covering/de-covering as directed by the District Manager, Sangrur, that would have saved the respondent no.1/employer from the huge loss.

3. Before I turn to the aspects of the case and the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner, it is required to be noted that the scope of hearing of a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which challenges the findings and conclusions of the departmental authorities, is limited. It is settled law that this Court does not sit as an appellate court over the findings and conclusions of the departmental authorities. This Court will not interfere with one of the two views which are taken by the departmental authorities on preponderance of probabilities. This Court will only interfere in case there is violation of the principles of natural justice or the actions of the departmental authorities are against the law or rules of the employer-organization or the findings and conclusions are perverse or the punishment imposed is disproportionate.

4. In the present case, the Enquiry Officer by his detailed report running into 35 pages has analyzed the entire evidence which was led before him, and has thereafter reached at the conclusion of the petitioner being guilty. It may be noted that the only defence of the petitioner/ charge-sheeted official, and which is also the only argument urged before me, is that the petitioner was not posted at Amargarh and nor was he in-charge of the stocks at Amargarh. The case of the department on the other hand was that the petitioner was no doubt not posted at Amargarh but petitioner was joint custodian of the stocks at Amargarh. With regard to this aspect, the Enquiry Officer has given the following observations:- “(c) Shri Lakhwinder Singh, AG. II (D) worked at H.G.Amargarh from Sep 87 to Jan 99. He was the joint custodian of paddy 1997-98 and wheat 1998-99 with Shri Bakhshish Singh, AG.I(D) Amargarh alongwith Punjab Mandi Karan Board, Malerkotla –I. (Statement of DW-3, Page 37/100 or Exhibit P-2/2 and Exhibit D-6). xxxxxxxx (bp) Shri Lakhwinder Singh, AG.II(D) identified his signature on page 37/100 for Exhibit P-2/2 and confirmed its contents. (Cross-examination of DW-3).” (underlining added)

5. Enquiry Officer in his detailed report dated 3.10.2001 has given the factual narration with respect to storing of the stocks at Amargarh during the years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, how the stocks were damaged, how the remedial actions were not taken, and how various persons including the petitioner were guilty of causing loss on account deterioration/ down-grading of stocks. I need not refer to all these aspects because of the limited issue involved of whether the petitioner was a joint custodian and hence was also responsible for the stocks at Amargarh although he was only posted at Malerkotla.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued by placing reliance upon the documents Annexure P-3 (pages 58 and 59), Annexure P-4 (pages 60 and 61), Annexure P-5 (Page 62) and Annexure P-6 (Page 63) (these annexures being the annexures to the writ petition) that the petitioner was not responsible for the stocks at Amargarh and therefore petitioner could not have been held guilty.

7. Qua the aforesaid documents being Annexures P-3 to P-6 the case of the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer had first received these documents, but thereafter the Enquiry Officer had forcibly returned these documents back to the petitioner and therefore these documents could not become part of the Enquiry Officer’s record. Petitioner argues that the aspect that the Enquiry Officer forcibly returned these documents has been mentioned by the petitioner in the Review Petition dated 17.2.2003 against the order of the Appellate Authority. It is argued that once all these documents are taken into consideration, petitioner will stand exonerated, and therefore the order passed by the Reviewing Authority dated 12.7.2004 be set aside.

8. At the outset I must note that the petitioner has not filed the representation given against the Enquiry Officer’s report, as also the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority, and which documents were required to show that the petitioner had taken up a case before the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority that the Enquiry Officer had forcibly returned the documents Annexures P-3 to P-6. Also, in my opinion, it is not enough even if the petitioner challenged the Enquiry Officer’s report before the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority on the ground that the Enquiry Officer had forcibly returned the documents, inasmuch as, if the documents were allegedly forcibly returned by the Enquiry Officer, then it was the petitioner who had to immediately after the alleged illegal returning of the documents write a letter to the Enquiry Officer alongwith the documents that the petitioner wanted the documents to come on record but the petitioner was illegally forced to return the documents. Admittedly, before me, no such letter which is written by the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer that the Enquiry Officer had forcibly returned the documents Annexures P-3 to P-6, has been filed. Thus it is doubted that the Enquiry Officer forcibly returned Annexures P-3 to P-6.

9. Now let us assume that the documents being Annexures P-3 to P-6 ought to be a part of the record of the Enquiry Officer and without which there will be violation of the principles of natural justice, and therefore let us examine these documents to find out whether they support the case of the petitioner that he was not the joint custodian of the stocks at Amargarh during the years 1997-98 and 1998-99.

10. So far as the first document being Annexure P-3 is concerned, the said document is only limited to two months of October and November, 1997 and that too only on the aspect that the petitioner was not deputed at Amargarh to carry out receiving of paddy stocks in October and November,

1997. It is however noted that the charge against the petitioner in the present case is not only for the months of October and November, 1997, but is for the entire years 1997-98 and 1998-99 and therefore, firstly this document will not help the petitioner because it is only for two months. This document secondly will also not help the petitioner because this document only shows that the petitioner was not deputed at Amargarh to carry out receipt of the paddy stocks in October and November, 1997 whereas the charge against the petitioner is not taking necessary steps for proper storage and which negligence caused damage/deterioration to the stocks and also that even after damage was caused remedial measures were not taken by the petitioner. Therefore, in my opinion, the document Annexure P-3 being the certificate dated 6.9.1999 will not help the petitioner to establish that the petitioner was not the joint custodian of the stocks at Amargarh and that the petitioner was not guilty of negligence which has been found against him by the Enquiry Officer.

11. So far as the second argument of Annexure P-4 is concerned, once again this document does not help the petitioner because this document only shows that certain officers were to take the receipt of the stocks from 22.9.1997 and in which the name of the petitioner was not there, but, it is not the case of the petitioner that after issuing of this document Annexure P-4, no further order was issued that petitioner was relieved from his duties either for receipt of stocks or as the joint custodian of stocks at Amargarh and that he thereafter was not to continue as joint custodian of the stocks at Amargarh. Also, this document Annexure P-4 is again only with respect to taking receipt of the stocks and not with respect to maintenance of the stocks and the damage caused to the stocks on account of lack of maintenance including by not complying with the orders of taking remedial measures. Therefore, this document also in my opinion will not help the petitioner.

12. So far as the documents Annexures P-5 and P-6 are concerned, these are photocopies of register showing stocks at Amargarh, and which documents are relied upon to argue that the same bear initials of some other officers, showing that petitioner cannot be held to be a joint custodian of these stocks. With regard to these documents Annexures P-5 and P-6, these will not help the petitioner because these are not the documents to show that who were the persons who were the custodians of the stocks at Amargarh and signing of registers of stocks by a particular person who is not the petitioner cannot mean that petitioner can be held that he was not the joint custodian of the stocks at Amargarh. Petitioner therefore can derive no benefit of the documents Annexure P-5 and P-6.

13. In view of the above, argument of the petitioner of violation of the principles of natural justice because the documents relied upon by the petitioner have not been considered by the Enquiry Officer, has no legs to stand upon and is rejected.

14. At this stage, I would also like to state that I have already reproduced above the two portions of the Enquiry Officer’s report being paras (c) and (bp) and which paras show the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer of the petitioner being a joint custodian on the basis of the statement of DW-3, page 37/100 or Ex. P-2/2 and Ex.D-6, but, petitioner has deliberately and conveniently failed to file these documents before this Court and which documents would clearly have shown that the departmental Enquiry Officer was justified in arriving at the conclusion of the petitioner being the joint custodian of the stocks at Amargarh. Petitioner therefore is guilty of concealing relevant documents/evidence on the basis of which petitioner has been found guilty by the Enquiry Officer.