LexBALBIR CHAND versus THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B BALBIR CHAND v. THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS. DECEMBER 16, 1996 (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] Misconduct-Punishment for-Order passed by highest authority-Validity of-Food Corporation of India-Contract for transporta- tion of the f oodgrains-A notorious contractor who has earlier committed C misappropriation obtained another Benami contract by impersona- tion-f'etitioner's failure in duty to verify the particulars-Charge of miscon- duct and dereliction of duty against petitioner and other employees-Conduct ofjoint enquiry-Order removing the petitioner from service-Order not passed by Zonal Manager who was competent to remove petitioner-lnstead order of D removal passed by higher authority viz. Managing Director-Held order was valid-Such an order is not violative of Article 14. Surjit Ghosh v. Chainnan & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank, AIR (1995) SC 1053, held inapplicable. E Service Law-Number of delinquent employees-Conduct of joint en- quiry-Procedure for-lnstructions regarding-Need to split up enquiTy-Held disciplinary enquiry should not be equated as a prosecution for an offence in a criminal Court where the delinquents are arrayed as co-accused-In dis- ciplinary proceedings, the concept of co-accused does not arise-Therefore, each of the delinquents would be entitled to summon the other person and F examine on his behalf as a defence witness in the enquiry or summon to cross-examine any other delinquent officer if he finds him to be hostile and have his version placed on record for consideration by the disciplinary authority-Under these circumstances, the need to split up the cases is ob- viously redundant, time consuming and dilatory-It should not be en- G couraged-Therefore, there was no illegality in the action taken after conduct of joint enquiry. Service Law-Misconduct-Number of delinquent officers-f'unish- ment"J)arity-Held merely because one of the officers was wrongly given the lesser punishment compared to others against whom there is a proved mis- H conduct, it cannot be held that. they too should also be given the lesser 156 BALBIR CHAND v. F.C.I. LTD. 157 punishment lest the same mistaken view would be repeated-Omission to ·A repeat same mistake would not be violative of Article 14 and cannot be held as arbitrary or discriminatory leading to misq1rriage of justice-It is open to the appropriate higher authority to take appropriate decision according to law. Service Law-Public servant-Need for opennes and accountability in conducting the public dealings-Personal recovery of loss from erring officials. B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23981 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.96 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 12340 of 1996. C V. Shekhar for the Petitioner. - The following Order of the Court was delivered: This special leave petition arises from the order of the Division D Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on August 16, 1996 in CWP No. 12340/96, dismissing the petition in limine. While the petitioner was working as Manager in the Food Corpora- tion of India, Chandigarh Office, one Rajinder Singh Rana impersonating himself as Harjit Singh son of Ajit Singh, had succeeded in obtaining a E contract with the Corporation for the year 1992-93 for transportation of the foodgrains. The petitioner's duty was to verify the particulars furnished with the tender and to submit the same to t!te competent authority for talcing decision in that behalf. In the verific11J!P1!- report submitted by the petitioner, he had stated that Harjit Singh had produced a bank account F with balance of Rs. 200 while the certificate obtained by Harjit Singh allegedly from the Bank authorities, dated February 4, 1992 revealed "the balance of Harjit Singh as 56,400. As regards the value of residential House Building, the approved Designer and Architect had evaluated it. It was also stated that "the party holds a good reputation in the city''. On that basis, the contract was obtained, but subsequently it was discovered that the said G Harjit Singh son of Ajit Singh who obtained the contract was no other than Rajinder Singh Rana who misappropriated 1400 MT of superfine rice delivered to him for transportation ex-Khanna to Assam by road. Based thereon, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner and others for their dereliction of duty and misconduct in thei
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.