FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS versus SARAT CHANDRA GOSWAMI

Citation: [2014] 6 S.C.R. 91 · Decided: 21-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014) 6 S.C.R. 91 
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS 
v. 
SARAT CHANDRA GOSWAMI 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7201-7202 of 2008) 
MAY 21, 2014 
[DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
A 
8 
Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 -
Regulation 60(1){b) -
Procedure for imposing minor 
penalties - Interpretation of - Held: Where the employees C 
disputes his liability, a full-fledged enquiry is not expected 
to be held as that would frustrate the purpose of interpreting 
the summary procedure for imposing minor penalties -
However, the discretion conferred under the Regulation 
60(1)(b) if exercised in a arbitrary manner, the employee can 
D 
challenge the same before the appropriate forum -
Regulation 60(1)(b) mandates the disciplinary authority to 
form its opinion whether it is necessary to hold an inquiry in 
a particular case or not - Opinion has to be founded on 
certain objective criteria - It must reflect some reason - It can 
E 
neither be capricious or fanciful but demonstrative of 
application of mind - Thus, it has to be in writing - On facts 
disciplinary authority not complied with Regulation 60(1)(b}, 
-thus proceedings vitiated - High Court rightly quashed the 
order of punishment and show cause notice - Service Law. 
F 
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 
respondent-District Manager, Food Corporation of India 
under Regulation 60 of the F.ood Corporation of India 
(Staff) Regulations, 1971, for failure in his duties. The 
Chairman-cum-Managing Director carried the preliminary 
G 
inquiry, issued show cause notice and imposed fine and 
censure against the respondent. The respondent filed 
writ petition alleging that the disciplinary authority had 
not complied with Regulation 60(1)(b) of the Regulations 
91 
H 
92 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
and, thus, the whole proceeding was vitiated. The High 
_Court quashed the order of punishment as well as the 
show cause notice. The Division Bench upheld the order. 
Hence, the instant appeal. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. On a perusal of the order passed by the 
Single Judge of the High Court, the Court took note of 
the fact that there was no expression or formation of 
opinion; and that the counsel for the Corporation had 
C conceded that there was nothing to show that the 
Chairman-cum-Managing Director who had made the final 
order had recorded any opinion in writing before making 
the final order to the effect there was no need to hold a · 
regular inquiry. From the principle stated by this Court in 
O *A. Prahalada Rao's case it is quite limpid that though in 
all cases where the employees disputes his liability, a full-
fledged enquiry is not expected to be held as that would 
frustrate the purpose of interpreting the summary 
procedure for imposing minor penalties, yet the discretion 
E 
conferred under the Regulation 60(1)(b) of the Food 
Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 if exercised 
in a arbitrary manner, it is open to the employee to 
challenge the same before the appropriate forum. Thev 
Court opined that the Regulation 60(1 )(b) mandates the 
F 
disciplinary authority to form its opinion whether it is 
necessary to hold an inquiry in a particular case or not. 
[Para 9] [97-C-F] 
1.2. Once it is held that there has to be formation of 
opinion and such an opinion is assailable in a legal 
G forum, that the said opinion has to be founded on certain 
objective criteria. It must reflect some reason. It can 
neither be capricious or fanciful but demonstrative of 
application of mind. Therefore, it has to be in writing. It 
may be on the file and may not be required to be 
H 
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. SARAT 
93 
CHANDRA GOSWAMI 
communicated to the employee but when it is subject to 
A 
assail and, eventually, subject to judicial review, the 
competent authority of the Corporation is required to 
satisfy the Court that the opinion was formed on certain 
parameters indicating that there was no necessity to hold 
an enquiry. Thus, the High Court correctly understood 
B 
the principle stated in A. Prabhakar Rao and there is no 
fault with the same. [Para 10] [97-G-H; 98-A-B] 
*Food Corporation of India, Hyderabad & Ors. v. A. 
Praha/ada Rao & Anr (2001) 1 SCC 165:2000 (4) Suppl. C 
SCR 330-Relied on. 
Case Law Reference : 
(2001) 1 sec 165 
Relied on 
Para 3 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
7201-7202 of 2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2007 in F.M.A 
No. 1187 and

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