Petitioner, working with FCI, was removed from service without an inquiry for unauthorized absence abroad. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding the Disciplinary Authority was justified in dispensing with the inquiry as the employee evaded communication.
Petition dismissed; removal of services order confirmed as legal and justified.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P. No.10031 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.10031 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION: JULY 10, 2009
Sukhwinder Singh
.....PETITIONER
Versus
The Food Corporation of India and others
....RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr.Arun Takhi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The petitioner, who was working as Typist in the Regional Office of Food Corporation of India (Punjab) at Chandigarh, has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 24.9.1998 (Annexure P3) whereby he has been ordered to be removed from service w.e.f. 19.1.1998 on the ground of absence from duty; as well as the order dated 28.7.2005/3.8.2005 (Annexure P5) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been rejected by the Zonal Manager (North), Food Corporation of India , Noida (UP).
It is the case of the petitioner that he has been removed from service without holding any inquiry and providing an opportunity of hearing, which is totally illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
In the present case, the respondents have passed the order of
C.W.P. No.10031 of 2009 -2-
removal of services of the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 56 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 read with Regulation 63(ii). Regulation 58 of the said Regulations provides that no order of imposing any major penalty specified in Regulation 54 could be imposed except after holding an inquiry as provided in Regulation 59 after providing an opportunity of hearing. Regulation 63 of the Regulations provides special procedure in certain cases. It provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 58 to Regulation 62, the Disciplinary Authority, if satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these Regulations, may dispense with the requirement of holding the inquiry. In the instant case, the respondent-Disciplinary Authority by invoking the said clause, has dispensed with the requirement of holding the inquiry and passed the order of removal of services of the petitioner for the alleged misconduct.
In this case, the petitioner submitted an application dated 8.1.1998 seeking permission to go abroad and applied for earned leave w.e.f. 19.1.1998 to 17.2.1998 on the ground that he had to attend the `Mundan' ceremony of his nephew living in U.K. The leave applied for by the petitioner was not allowed and permission to go abroad was not granted to him. In spite of that, the petitioner went abroad without permission, which was totally contrary to the Instructions issued by the respondent Corporation. The said conduct of the petitioner was tantamount to grave misconduct as per Rules and the Instructions of the respondent Corporation. The petitioner was written a letter by the respondent Corporation to return to his duties immediately with explicit warning to him that his name would be struck-off from the rolls of the Corporation, but he did not care.
C.W.P. No.10031 of 2009 -3-
Thereafter, another registered Memorandum was sent to him at his available/disclosed foreign address, but the said letter was also received with the remarks “Not called for/nor reclaimed” which lent credence to the belief that he was evading the communications deliberately and continued to remain on wilful absence. Thereafter, a Press Notice was got published in four newspapers, but in spite of that he did not resume his duties. It has also been noticed that in order to negate the proposed action, he sent an undated application without any address received through his father on 3.8.1998. In the said letter, he did not disclose his actual address in U.K. deliberately and consciously as he wanted to avoid to participate in the departmental action. By taking into consideration all these facts and the fact that on an earlier occasion also the petitioner went abroad unauthorizedly and in that regard penalty of stoppage of two increments was imposed against him, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that it was not practicable to hold inquiry as per the provisions of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971. Therefore, by invoking the provisions of Regulation 63(ii) of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, the services of the petitioner were removed by the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the decision of this Court in Lalji Dass, Ex-Constable v. State of Punjab and others, 1996(1) RSJ 285 and the Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Administration v. Inderjit, 2003(3) RSJ 696, submitted that the Disciplinary Authority without recording sufficient reasons on the basis of any valid material, had illegally dispensed with the holding of the inquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order of removal of services of the petitioner is illegal as neither any inquiry was held nor opportunity of
C.W.P. No.10031 of 2009 -4-
hearing was provided to the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has recorded sufficient reasons for dispensing with the holding of the inquiry. In my opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority that the holding of the inquiry is not practicable in this case, cannot be said to be illegal or unreasonable. Consciously or intentionally without seeking prior permission and getting his leave sanctioned, the petitioner went abroad and remained there for a long time. In his leave application, the petitioner gave specific address of the foreign country, but he deliberately and consciously did not respond to the registered letters sent by the respondent Corporation on that address. Wide publication was made in the newspapers, but he also did not response. He deliberately and consciously sent the letter not giving his address for extension of leave as he intentionally wanted to evade the services of any notice to him. By taking into consideration all these factors, the Disciplinary Authority was fully justified in dispensing with the holding of inquiry by invoking the provisions of Regulation 56 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 read with Regulation 63(ii). Keeping in view the earlier misconduct of the petitioner, the respondent Corporation, in my opinion, has rightly passed the order of removal of services of the petitioner. Thus, I do not find any merit in the instant petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
July 10, 2009 vkg
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Disciplinary Authority was justified in dispensing with holding an inquiry under Regulation 63(ii) of FCI Staff Regulations, 1971.
Whether the petitioner's unauthorized absence and evasion of communication justified the removal of services without notice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalji DassReferred¶21
Lalji Dass, Ex-Constable v. State of Punjab and others, 1996(1) RSJ 285
Delhi AdministrationReferred¶21
Delhi Administration v. Inderjit, 2003(3) RSJ 696
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sukhwinder Singh
The Food Corporation of India
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
