Dismissed

Kuldip Singh v. F C I and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Sept 2008CWP/16482/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that writ petitions challenging a penalty order imposed by the Food Corporation of India were not maintainable due to the availability of an internal appeal remedy under Staff Regulations, and disposed of the petitions accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed as not maintainable; internal appeal period granted; execution of order stayed during appeal pendency.

Kuldip Singh Vs F C I and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

CWP No.16482 of 2007 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CWP No.16482 of 2007 Date of decision: 8.9.2008

Kuldip Singh

..Petitioner

Versus

Food Corporation of India & others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶10

Present: Mr. J.S. Wasu, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Heman Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶12

Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (oral)

¶13

This order will dispose of four writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 16482, 16523, 16524 and 16525. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners have impugned the order (Annexure P-6), passed by the Executive Director (North), Food Corporation of India, whereby exoneration of the petitioners as awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 12^th October, 2006, was set aside and they were imposed a penalty of reversion to the lower post for three years with cumulative effect (till retirement in the case of petitioner P.S. Bhogal). It was further observed that the petitioners be considered for promotion after expiry of three years if found suitable for that post along with recovery of Rs.2,00,000/to partially set off the loss.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

¶15

CWP No.16482 of 2007 2

¶16

petitioners have an alternative remedy to file an appeal under Regulation 74 (b) of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 and therefore, the present writ petitions are not maintainable.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of the stand taken by the respondents, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have the alternative remedy to file an appeal against the impugned order (Annexure P-6) under the aforesaid regulations.

¶18

In view of the above, the present writ petitions are not maintainable and are disposed of as such. In case, the petitioners file an appeal within 15 days from today, the same shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of two months thereafter. During the pendency of the appeal before the competent authority, the impugned order (Annexure P-6) shall not be given effect to. The respondents shall also not take up the plea of limitation.

¶19

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE

¶20

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

¶21

September 08, 2008. 'rajpal'

Kuldip Singh v. F C I and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldip Singh v. F C I and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harjot Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rupinder Kaur Vs State Ofpb. and Ors.

Pardeep Blaggan Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Shamsher Singh Antall Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rami Rani Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kulwant Kaur Vs Municipal Corporation, Chd. and Ors.