F.C.I. AND ORS. versus SONELAL

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 238 · Decided: 14-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
F.C.I. AND ORS. 
v. 
SONELAL 
NOVEMBER 14, 2005 
B 
[RUMA PAL; DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND DAL VEER BHANDARI; JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1971 ,' )?.egulations 54, 
C 56, 57, 58 and 59: 
Disciplinary proceedings against an employee-Imposing of major 
penalty of compulsory retirement by Senior/Regional Manager-Challenged 
on the ground of incompetency of the authority-Allowed by Single Judge 
D and affirmed by Division Bench of the High Court-On appeal, Held: Issuance 
of promotion order· by the Zonal Manager could not lead to the inference 
that he was the appointing authority-The final authority making the. 
promotion of the employee is not the· Zonal Manager but Senior Regional 
Manager/Regional Manager, and thus they are competent authority to impose 
any penalty, major or minor-High Court erred in setting aside the order of 
E compulsory retirement of the employee on the ground of incompetency of the 
authority-Neither show cause notice was issued nor enquiry report was 
furnished to the employee before imposing on him major penalty of compulsory 
retirement, the issue was not examined by the High Court-Hence matter 
remitted to High Court for consideration as to whether such act of omission 
F on the part of the employer amounting to violation of principle of natural 
justice-Directions issued-Administrative Law. 
Appellant-employer initiated disciplinary proceedings against the 
respondent-employee and penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on 
him in terms of Regulation 56 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) 
Regulations, 1971. The respondent challenged the order of compulsory 
G retirement on the ground that it was issued by an authority lower in rank 
than the appointing authority. Single Judge of the High Court allowed the 
writ petition by setting aside the order on the ground of incompetency of the 
issuing authority. Appeal filed by the employer was dismissed by the Division 
Bench of the High Court. Hence the present appeals. 
II 
238 
F.C.I. v. SONELAL 
239 
Appellant contended that the respondent had been promoted as Technical A 
Assistant Grade-I by an authority equal in rank of Deputy Zonal Manager 
and that mere mention of the designation of Zonal Manager (North) in the 
order of promotion could not and cannot lead to an inference that the 
respondent had been promoted by that officer; that promotion order had been 
issued on the recommendations of the Committee headed by Deputy Zonal · 
Manager without obtaining of any approval from appellant No.2 (Zonal B 
Manager); and that since appellant No.3 is competent to make appointment/ 
promotion to the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I, he had jurisdiction to 
impose the penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent 
Respondent submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court reached 
its conclusion to the effect that the appointment of the respondent was made C 
by the Zonal Manager after going through_ the relevant files and, therefore, 
the conclusion is in accordance with the letters/notings contained in the file 
and, therefore, no interference with the judgment of the Division Bench is 
called for; that the explanation to Regulation 56 clearly provide that in a case 
where the authority which appointed the employee is an authority higher than D 
the authority empowered to make appointments to the grade/post under the 
Regulation, the power under Regulation 54 to impose penalty as specified in 
Clauses (v) to (ix) of the Regulations will be exercised by such higher 
authority; that the action taken by appellant No.3 was vitiated due to violation 
of rules of natural justice inasmuch as the respondent had not been supplied 
copy of the enquiry report and no notice was given to him to show cause against E 
the proposed punishment; and that the Senior Regional Manager, though an 
authority empowered to make an appointment, could not have passed the order 
imposing penalty of compulsory retirement in the present case inasmuch as 
the order of appointment/promotion was made by the Zonal Manager. 
F 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Division Bench of the High court totally overlooked and 
failed to consider the case of the appellant that the file of the respondent-
employee had been put up before the Zonal Manager only for the purpose of 
retention of Technical Assistant Grade-I selectees within the State of Punjab, . G 
in promoted capacity due to non-existing vacancies in the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.