Allowed

N Rajasekaraiah v. Food Corporation of India

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2024WP/40163/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged departmental orders imposing censure and monetary recovery for alleged storage losses. The Court held that the Disciplinary Authority failed to record an opinion on why an inquiry was unnecessary, violating procedural mandates under the FCI Staff Regulations, and set aside the orders.

What did the court decide?

The impugned penalty orders dated 20.12.2010, 02.07.2011 and 26.07.2012 were set aside and the case remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to apply its mind whether an inquiry is necessary.

N Rajasekaraiah Vs Food Corporation of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 40163 OF 2012 (S-R)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

N. RAJASEKARAIAH S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS C/O MANJUNATHASWAMY NILAYA, HOSAHALLI GOLLARAPALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE-560091.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. CHANDRAKALA G., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA DISTRICT OFFICE, KRPG COMPLEX VIJANAPURA, BENGALURU-560016 BY ITS AREA MANAGER.

¶12

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.10, EAST END MAIN ROAD, 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560041, BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (KAR)

¶14

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, NO.3, HADDOWS ROAD CHENNAI-600 006 BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SOUTH)

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶19

PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT IN NO.VIG.W/5U/KRPG-DSQ/2010 DATED 20.12.2010 (ANNEXURE-C) AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the respondent No.1/disciplinary authority by which, it imposed penalty of censure and ordered to recover a sum of Rs.1,32,407/- from his terminal benefits. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 02.07.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority, reducing the penalty to a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order passed by the reviewing authority dated 26.07.2012 by which, the order passed by the Appellate Authority was confirmed.

¶24

The petitioner contends that he was posted as the Assistant Grade - I at Unit No.4 of respondent No.1. He was assigned the job of the shed-in-charge and was expected to receive and issue stocks and to maintain Gunny registers etc., He contends that he was discharging his duties diligently. He contends that during July, 2010, stocks in the godown were over loaded and he took charge of the godown based on the

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶26

book balance. When he worked as a shed in-charge, he only issued stocks that was already received by his predecessors. He contends that he retired from service on 30.11.2010. At the time of receiving his retirement benefits, he was shocked to know that the respondent No.1 had recovered a sum of Rs.1,32,407/- towards storage loss that was allegedly incurred during August, 2010. He contends that he was issued with a memo/show-cause notice dated 25.11.2010 for which, he submitted a reply dated 29.11.2010. However, the respondent No.1 without considering the reply of the petitioner passed an order dated 20.12.2010 imposing penalty of censure and ordered to recover a sum of Rs.1,32,407/- being the value of storage loss suffered by the respondent No.1. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the respondent No.2 who also upheld the order passed by the respondent No.1 but reduced the amount to be recovered to Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner unsuccessfully assailed the above orders before the reviewing authority. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶28

that the charges leveled against the petitioner was that (i) in

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶30

case of stack No.C2/117 as against a book balance of nil bags = 2.014.085 metric tons on 06.08.2010. There was no ground

¶31

balance and therefore, the petitioner was accused of manipulation. (ii) in respect of stack No.A10/123 it was alleged that 15 empty gunnies were kept in the stack U4/A10 and the shed in-charge informed that these gunnies were released from the stack which was not accepted by the squad team, for the reason that those gunny bags were of different stencil marks and did not pertain to Haryana region from where this stack was received. (iii) that 50 numbers of empty gunnies found hidden under polythene covers in U4/B5 block on 04.08.2010, but on enquiry the petitioner was not able to give any convincing reply and this was accounted, as receipt in gunny register in folio No.33.

¶32

The learned counsel, submitted that the petitioner specifically replied to these charges and had in detail explained the manner of storage of the gunnies as well as the stock received. She contends that the respondent No.1 did not consider the explanation offered, but on its own came to the conclusion that there was no need to conduct a disciplinary enquiry and proceeded to pass an order. She submits that the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶35

respondent No.1 was bound to at least form an opinion as to why a disciplinary enquiry was not necessary after hearing the petitioner. Therefore, she submits that the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority imposing penalty to recover a sum of Rs.50,000/- is illegal and deserves to be interfered.

¶36

Per contra, the respondents have filed statement of objections, contending inter-alia that the petitioner was the shed-in-charge of the depot of respondent No.1 at Whitefield and was expected to receive and issue the stocks, maintain the gunny register. The claimed that the District squad visited the shed and found certain irregularities, as a result of which, a show cause notice dated 19.11.2010 was issued. They claimed that the petitioner did not reply to the notice and therefore disciplinary action was initiated under Regulation 60 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, followed by articles of charge. The petitioner replied and denied the charges. They claimed that the respondent No.1 after being satisfied about the charges made passed the impugned order censuring the petitioner and ordering the recovery of Rs.1,32,407/-, which was later modified and reduced to Rs.50,000/- by the appellate authority.

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶38

The respondents denied the contentions urged in the writ petition and claimed that the petitioner had verified the stock when he took charge and therefore his claims in the petition were invented to avoid the inevitable. They contended that petitioner had participated in the proceedings and the disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner had passed the impugned order of censure and recovery. They claimed that the directions given for liquidation of stock of rice were the normal standard procedures which the petitioner was required to comply and that he derelicted in his duty in not complying.

¶39

The learned counsel for respondents has filed an elaborate written submissions which are extracted below:

¶40

(i) that this Court in writ jurisdiction should seldom interfere in departmental enquiries. Reliance was placed on B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others (1995) 6 SCC 749.

¶41

(ii) that penalty of censure and recovery of money was a minor penalty. That Regulation 60 provides for procedure to be followed in respect of a misconduct for which a minor penalty is proposed.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶44

(iii) While considering the reply submitted by petitioner, reasonable justifications were taken into consideration. However, the disciplinary authority was of the opinion that the explanation offered did not exempt the petitioner from being proceeded departmentally.

¶45

(iv) that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India Vs. A.Prahalada Rao, 2000 INSC 500 held that once the employee denies the charge, it is incumbent upon the authority to conduct enquiry contemplated for imposing major penalty. However, as per regulations, holding of a regular departmental enquiry is a discretionary power of the disciplinary authority which is to be exercised by considering the facts of each case and if it is misused or used arbitrarily, it would be subject to judicial review.

¶46

(v) If the Disciplinary Authority feels that a regular inquiry as contemplated under Regulation 58 is required to be conducted even when the punishment proposed to be imposed is a minor penalty, then the Authority has a discretion to do so as per Regulation 60(1)(b). But if the Disciplinary Authority feels that a regular inquiry is not necessary, then it does not mean that no inquiry will be conducted at all. In the latter case,

¶47

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶48

the inquiry would be a summary inquiry and not a regular inquiry as contemplated under Regulation 58 which is for major penalties. A bare perusal of Regulation 60(3) makes this clear.

¶49

I have considered the contentions urged at the bar and I have thoroughly gone through the papers placed before me as well as the authorities cited.

¶50

The articles of charge framed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner shows that the petitioner was charged for the following:

¶51

"Shri. N.RAJASEKHARAIAH, AG I [D] while functioning as shed-incharge of Unit No. 4 of FSD, KRPG during August 2010 has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Corporation in as much as he has failed to exercise proper care and to bestow proper attention over the operations that took place in his shed. As a result, the District Squad who witnessed the issue of stocks in his shed observed the following lapses and failures on the part of Shri. N.RAJASEKHARAIAH, AG I [D].

¶52

Shri. N.RAJASEKHARAIAH, AG I [D], has failed to control the losses in unit No.4 during August 2010 with the result that very high and unjustifiable storage losses occurred in his shed as detailed in the imputation of charges in six stacks and hence Shri.

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶54

N.RAJASEKHARAIAH, AG I [D] is responsible for the huge financial losses caused to the corporation.

¶55

Shri. N.RAJASEKHARAIAH, AG I [D] has recorded gunny released in three stacks without any matching gunny consumption which was found to be abnormal by the said District Squad.

¶56

Shri. N.RAJASEKHARAIAH, AG I [D], has been responsible for the following lapses noticed in his shed by the said District Squad.

¶57

In case of Stack No.C2/117 against the book balance of Nil bags =2.104.085 MTs. [Net] on 6.8.2010 there was no ground balance, not even a single grains was found, the remarks made by the shed I/C on the Stack card register folio that "this was kept to reduce the loss / % etc. is not proper and clearly shows the intention for manipulation.

¶58

In case of Stack No.A10/123, the 15 empty gunnies kept in the stack of U4/A10 and the shed I/C told that these gunnies were released from the stack which was not accepted by the squad for the reason that these gunnies were of different stencil marks but not pertaining to Haryana Region from where the stack was received.

¶59

At the time of inspection, 50 Nos. of Empty gunnies found hidden under ploythene covers in U4/B5 block on 4.8.2010 on enquiry the shed I/C was not able to give any convincing reply this was accounted as receipt in Gunny Register in folio No.33 with the remarks that Squad Found Gunnies in IV "B" by the shed I/C.

¶60

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶61

Therefore, it is proposed to take action under Regulation 60 of FCI, Staff Regulation 1971 in contravention of the articles, 30, 32, 32a [5/9/30]."

¶62

The petitioner submitted his reply to the articles of

¶63

charge on 29.11.2010 setting out the following reasons:

¶64

"1. The charges made against shed in charge is denied because at the time of liquidation of Stock shed in charge has taken enough care to load the truck up to last grain in the stack and whatever storage loss noticed is declared. When this is the case how shed in charge is alleged to failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the corporation.

¶65

2. All the 5 stocks in question were liquidated in presence of district/regional squad. All the stacks are URS rice, the stack no.4B1/131 is issued out in the absence of squad. The URS rise was stored for the period from 107-158 days. Though the laid down norms clearly specifies that the URS rice should not be stored for a long duration to avoid deterioration of stacks and also to avoid loss, even then the district management as taken decision to keep the stocks 107-158 days resulted abnormal storage loss. In this regard shed in charge is not having any say in deciding to issue the stocks on priority. Hence, the % of loss observed 0.73% to 2.63%. This loss incurred mainly due to keeping the URS stocks for long period more over all the stocks liquidated in the presence of

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶67

11 -

¶68

district/regional squad only. During August 2010 stack no 4B1/131 is not liquidated, has mentioned in the memorandum but it was liquidated during September 2010. Stock 4E2 121/10, 4E6/17/10, 4A10/123/10, 4D9/126/10, issued out in the presence of district/regional squad but the stack no 4C2/117/10 issued in the absence of the squad. the squad also noticed abnormal storage loss, it is not in the hands of shed in charge to control the natural loss. The following are the natural causes for abnormal storage loss.

¶69

A. a rake loaded from 13-14 stacks the average weight varies from stack to stack received on 10% weight and issued 100% weight, 10% weight is not actual weight of the stack.

¶70

B. The calculation and record of RMC and IMC is not made in the presence of shed in charge hence variation of moisture 0.4-1.20% is not agreed by the shed in charge.

¶71

C. Insect infestation and deterioration of stack

¶72

D. Both at the time of receipt and issues stacks were not weight in the presence of shed in charge.

¶73

E. Non providing of dunnage materials.

¶74

F. Manager depot/any visiting officer not given any complaint against shed in charge stating that shed in charge is alone responsible for storage loss.

¶75

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶76

G. Multiple handling of bags.

¶77

H. There was no scientific method given to shed in charge to control/minimize storage loss.

¶78

I. Then and there shed in charge was not given education like conducting seminar/giving Lecture/practical class to control/minimize storage loss.

¶79

J. Period of storage shed in charge never say to keep the stock up to 107-158 days.

¶80

K. Failed to depute experts to sheds to show how to minimize storage loss practically.

¶81

3. At the time of receipt due to high percentage of moisture all bags were looking full/tight as if no slag bags, but due to 107-158 days storage and due to driage the bags become slag, and slag bags party will not take hence shed in charge forced to refilled the slag bags, so gunny release took place, when this is the reality how matching gunnies consumption took place according to original transaction. This contention of district/regional squad is completely wrong.

¶82

4. Our General Manager [KTK] in his D.O. letters always giving instruction to reduce the storage loss up to target loss of 0.18% for all the shed in charges. The shed in charge was trying to achieve this target in the instance case the shed in charge is not permitted by the squad to achieve it so the question of

¶83

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶84

manipulation will not arise. Hence, the same quantity was declared as storage loss on 6-8-10.

¶85

5. At the time of taking charge of shed no. 4 on 13-5-10 the entire shed alleyways was blocked by dumping rise bags. hence difference source bags were mixed in the blocks at the time of liquidation of stocks the squad noticed difference stencil mark gunnies is due to mixing of different source bags at the time of dumping bags in the alleyways.

¶86

6. The squad found 50 SBT gunnies under neath the polythene cover on 4-8-10. Shed in charge was given convincing reply to the squad when they asked but squad did not agreed. After consultation with the squad shed in charge taken this gunnies in the shed gunny ledger and sent to stores."

¶87

The impugned order dated 20.12.2010 passed by

¶88

the Disciplinary Authority shows that the Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that:

¶89

"A. There was considerable reduction in Moisture Content from the date of receipt of the stocks and the charged official has also cited as one of the reasons for the abnormal storage loss.

¶90

B. Though the stocks were liquidated within span of 107 to 158 days, there ought to have been certain losses during such period of storage.

¶91

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶92

C. The stocks received with moisture higher than 14% moisture have been subjected to quality cuts at the time of procurements and hence the losses to that extent have been already compensated and as such the CO need not be subjected to recoveries to that extent.

¶93

D. That it may not be proper to hold the CO responsible for the entire losses in as much as the assistants of the shed are also responsible to some extent and hence decided to hold the CO responsible for 50% of the value of losses and decided to recover only to than extent.”

¶94

11. The Disciplinary Authority thus proceeded to hold

¶95

that the petitioner is guilty of the charges and passed the impugned order of penalty directing recovery of a sum of Rs.1,32,407/- from the terminal benefits of the petitioner. This was later modified by the Appellate Authority and the penalty was reduced to a sum of Rs.50,000/- in terms of the order dated 02.07.2011.

¶96

The Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (for short 'the Regulations, 1971') at Regulation 60 contains the procedure for imposing minor penalties. The same is extracted below for immediate reference:

¶97

60. Procedure for imposing minor penalties:

¶98

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶99

(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 59, no order imposing on an employee any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Regulation 54 shall be made except after:

¶100

(a) informing the employee in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;

¶101

(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in Sub-regulation (3) to (23)of Regulation 58, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;

¶102

(c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the employee under clause(a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause(b) into consideration;

¶103

(d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour.

¶104

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause(b) of Sub-regulation (1), if in a case it is proposed, after considering the representation, if any, made by the employee under clause(a) of the sub-regulation, to withhold increment of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of

¶105

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶106

retirement benefits payable to the; employee or to withhold increments of a pay for a period exceeding 3 years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in Sub-regulation (3) to (23) of Regulation 58 before making any order imposing on the employee any such penalty.

¶107

(3) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include:

¶108

(i) a copy of the intimation to the employee of the proposal to take action against him,

¶109

(ii) a copy of the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior delivered to him;

¶110

(iii) his representation, if any;

¶111

(iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry;

¶112

(v) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior; and

¶113

(vi) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefore."

¶114

Regulation 60(1)(b) of the Regulations, 1971 grants discretion to the Disciplinary Authority to decide whether an enquiry is necessary or not in the facts and circumstances of a given case.

¶115

In the case on hand, there is nothing to show how the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that an enquiry

¶116

17 - NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶117

was not necessary. On the contrary, the order imposing penalty by the Disciplinary Authority proceeds on certain observations made by the Disciplinary Authority based on certain records.

¶118

It is now trite that the Disciplinary Authority has to form an opinion as to how and why an enquiry is not necessary in the manner provided under Regulation 58 of the Regulations, 1971.

¶119

A perusal of clauses (i) to (iv) of Regulation 54 of

¶120

the Regulations, 1971 shows that the minor penalties are:

¶121

(i) censure;

¶122

(ii) withholding of his promotion;

¶123

(iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Corporation by negligence or breach of orders;

¶124

1*$ (a) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative

¶125

1* Inserted vide Notification No.84 dated 25.08.2000. Effective

¶126

from the date of Notification.

¶127

$ Inserted vide Notification No.126 dated 30.07.2020. Effective from the date of Notification’

¶128

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶129

effect and not adversely affecting his pension.

¶130

(iv) withholding of increments of pay.

¶131

Therefore, whenever the Disciplinary Authority

¶132

decides to impose a penalty specified in the above clauses, it is bound to inform the employee in writing of the proposal to take action against him and the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and also give him a reasonable opportunity of making a representation. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority shall decide whether an enquiry is necessary. If the Disciplinary Authority decides to proceed to conduct a disciplinary enquiry, then such enquiry shall be conducted in the manner provided under sub-regulations (3) to (23) of Regulation 58 of the Regulations, 1971. In a case reported in Food Corporation of India and Others v. Sarat Chandra Goswami [(2014) 13 SCC 211], the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the Regulations of 1971, held in para No.9 as follows:

¶133

"9. On a perusal of the order [Sarat Chandra Goswami v. Food Corporation of India, (2007) 2 Cal LJ 757] passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that he has taken note of the fact that there was no

¶134

19 -

¶135

NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶136

expression or formation of opinion. He has further recorded that the learned counsel for the Corporation had 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 that there was no need to hold a regular inquiry. From the principle stated by this Court in A. Prahalada Rao case [Food Corporation of India v. A. Prahalada Rao, (2001) 1 SCC 165 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 186] it is quite limpid that though in all cases where the employee 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 conferred under Regulation 60(1)(b), if exercised in an arbitrary manner, it is open to the employee to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. The Court had further opined that 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."

¶137

16. In the case on hand, there is nothing on record to

¶138

show as to how the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that an enquiry was unnecessary. There is nothing on record to show that the Disciplinary Authority issued any notice informing the petitioner as to how and why it felt that an enquiry was unnecessary. Therefore, the impugned order of

¶139

20 -

¶140

NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶141

penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority has no legs to stand and consequently, deserves to be set at naught. Hence, the following:

¶142

ORDERT

¶143

i. This petition is allowed .

¶144

ii. The impugned order of penalty dated 20.12.2010 imposed on the petitioner by the respondent No.1/Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 02.07.2011 passed by the respondent No.2/Appellate Authority modifying the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order dated 26.07.2012 passed by the respondent No.3/Reviewing Authority rejecting the review petition of the petitioner are set aside. However, having regard to the fact that there are certain financial irregularities reported during the time the petitioner was officiating as the shed in-charge which could be established based on documents lying in the custody of the Disciplinary Authority, it is appropriate to remit the case back to the Disciplinary Authority to enable it to first apply its mind whether an enquiry is necessary. If it finds that an enquiry is necessary, the Disciplinary Authority shall

¶145

21 - NC: 2024:KHC:32096 WP No. 40163 of 2012

¶146

proceed in accordance with law and conclude the enquiry within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If it finds that an enquiry is not necessary, it shall disclose why an enquiry is not necessary and then proceed in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶147

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶148

HJ-para Nos.1 to 6 SMA-para No.7 till the end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

N Rajasekaraiah v. Food Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Rajasekaraiah v. Food Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S Harsha Vardhana Rao Vs Hmt Limited

Sri Nyamath Ulla Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Miss Smruthi v Vs the Registrar General

Sri U K Ganapathy Vs the Registrar

Dr. Syed Abu Sayeed Mohammed Vs State of Karnataka

The President Vs Late Sri Krishna Hari Shanbhag