Ram Mehar v. Food Corporation of India

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues one very limited issue in this writ petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner for setting aside the orders passed by the departmental authorities, being the order of the disciplinary authority dated 23/24.6.1993 and the order of the appellate authority dated 28.6.1999.

2. The limited issue which is argued is that whereas the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 23/24.6.1993 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from services of the petitioner with the respondent no.1/Food Corporation of India/employer, the appellate authority seemingly 2016:DHC:8124 reduced the punishment by instead granting reversion in post of the petitioner from AG-I(D) to AG-II(D) with minimum pay in the reversion grade till his retirement, but such punishment is in fact a harsher punishment or increase of punishment in the facts of this case whereby petitioner retired around a year of passing of the order of the appellate authority.

3. The relevant paras of the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority read as under:- “Disciplinary authority’s order dated 23/24.6.1993

6. NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 56 read with Regulation 54 & 59 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, impose upon Shri Ram Mehar, AM(D) the penalty of “Compulsory Retirement from the services of the Corporation with immediate effect”.

7. A copy of this order be placed in the C.R. Dossier of Shri Ram Mehar, Asstt. Manager(D) now AG-I(D). Sd/- (S.S.C. MADAN)

ZONAL MANAGER (NORTH) Appellate authority’s order dated 28.6.1999 Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case I feel that the penalty imposed by the Zonal Manager (N) upon Shri Ram Mehar is little harsh considering the gravity of the case. I, therefore, propose that the penalty of reversion from AG-I to AG-II(D) with minimum of time scale of AG-II(D) will meet the ends of justice. I, S.S. DAWRA, Managing Director, being the Appellate Authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation-72 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 hereby modify the penalty of “Compulsory Retirement” imposed by the Zonal Manager (North) upon Shri Ram Mehar vide order dated 23/24.6.93 to that of reversion from the post of AG-I(D) to AG-II(D) with the minimum of pay of AG-II(D) till his retirement. Sd/- (S.S. DAWRA) MANAGING DIRECTOR”

4. Counsel for the petitioner argues the limited issue that the appellate authority by its order has in fact “killed the petitioner with kindness” because the effect of the order of the appellate authority has much drastic consequences than the order of the disciplinary authority inasmuch as the petitioner otherwise retired within around a year of passing of order by the appellate authority and thus resulting in petitioner getting much lesser terminal benefits than that petitioner would have got as per the order of the disciplinary authority. It is argued that the petitioner is ready to accept the order of the disciplinary authority of compulsory retirement, and therefore, the order of the appellate authority be set aside because the petitioner accepts the punishment of compulsory retirement from services and the appellate authority could not have given a higher punishment without the employer challenging the order of the disciplinary authority.

5. In my opinion, there cannot be any quarrel by the respondents to the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner because the appellate authority vide its order dated 28.6.1999 clearly records that the penalty of compulsory retirement is harsh, and therefore, the penalty of compulsory retirement is „reduced‟ by reversion in rank, and therefore once the petitioner is ready to accept the higher penalty as imposed by the disciplinary authority, therefore, this writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of by recording the statement on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the disciplinary authority dated 23/24.6.1993 will be binding against the petitioner and consequently the order of the appellate authority dated 28.6.1999 is accordingly set aside more so because an appellate authority cannot give a higher punishment than imposed by the disciplinary authority once the employer has not challenged the order of the disciplinary authority.

6. Taking the petitioner to have compulsorily retired in terms of the order of the disciplinary authority, the respondents will now act in consequential manner so far as the terminal benefits of the petitioner are concerned.

7. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the limited extent as stated above and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations.

DECEMBER 21, 2016 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J Ne