Bindeswari Singh and 11 Ors. Vs Food Coporation of India and 8 Ors.

Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Das, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. K. Roy, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. K. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (FCI) in the writ petition and the applicants in I.A.(Civil) No.3952/2024.

¶149

In the present writ petition the order dated 29.01.2021, by means of which, recovery of certain amount was made from the salary of the writ petitioners, has been assailed on the ground that the recovery was not preceded by a proper enquiry so as to establish the culpability of the writ petitioners.

¶150

Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel for the applicants/respondent FCI submits that similar orders were assailed by several other employees of the FCI by filing other writ petitions and this Court after considering the submissions made by both sides, had passed order dated 25.08.2021 in WP(C) No.2281/2021 granting liberty to the FCI to conduct a proper departmental enquiry by serving notice upon the officials and thereafter, pass an order in accordance with law. Mr. Roy, therefore, submits that this writ petition can also be disposed of in similar lines after granting liberty to the FCI authorities to conduct a fresh enquiry and pass necessary orders based on the findings of the enquiry proceeding.

¶151

Mr. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners is agreeable

¶152

Page No.# 11/11

¶153

to such an order. He, however, submits that in case liberty for conducting a fresh enquiry is granted to the department by this Court, the amount so deducted be refunded in the accounts of his clients and only thereafter, such enquiry be conducted.

¶154

The submission of Mr. Dasgupta appears to be fair and reasonable. At the same time, the request made by Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel for the applicants is also found to be logical in view of the orders dated 25.08.2021 passed by this Court. Although the order dated 25.08.2021 does not lay down any binding precedent for this Court to follow, yet, the view expressed by a coordinate Bench in the order dated 25.08.2021 will have to be followed by this Court to the extent the same applies to the facts of this case.

¶155

In view of the above, this writ petition as well as the I.A. are being disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 29.01.2021 qua the writ petitioners. Consequently, the respondents are directed to refund the excess amount already recovered from the salary/wages of the writ petitioners. Subject to such refund, the respondents (FCI) authorities would be at liberty to initiate appropriate departmental enquiry against the writ petitioners and thereafter pass such order in accordance with law as may be permissible in the facts of each case.

¶156

With the above observation, the I.A. as well as the writ petition stand disposed of.

¶157

JUDGE

¶158

Comparing Assistant

Bindeswari Singh and 11 Ors. v. Food Coporation of India and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindeswari Singh and 11 Ors. v. Food Coporation of India and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanowar Ali and 12 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 15 Ors.

Helmina Khatun and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Smti. Jharna Das and 24 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sachin Chauhan Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Sri Nandeshwar Hazarika Vs the State of Assam

Dr. Milanjit Bhattachryya Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.