Allowed

Kuldip Singh v. Food Corporation of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Feb 2012CWP/10127/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes a departmental disciplinary order against a Food Corporation of India employee. The court found the order flawed due to erroneous assumptions regarding custody and reliance on suspect photocopied records. The writ petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The order finding the petitioner guilty was quashed; the recovery was also quashed; the writ petition was allowed.

Kuldip Singh Vs Food Corporation of India… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.W.P. No.10127 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No.10127 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision.25.02.2012

¶6

Kuldip Singh son of late Sh. Sadhu Singh

¶7

.....Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Food Corporation of India and others

¶10

.....Respondents

¶11

Present: Mr. Jasdeep Singh Wasu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate for the respondents.

¶13

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶14

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

¶17

¶18

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

¶19

After notice has been ordered on 01.08.2011, the respondents have been served but the reply has not been filed so far, in spite of two opportunities which were granted to the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Mr. Walia seeks for consideration of the fact that the respondents may be given an opportunity to conduct the enquiry afresh, if the enquiry suffers from any fundamental error in making certain assumptions, which are contrary to records. I directed the counsel to argue the case on merits so that it would be possible to examine whether such a process could be undertaken or not.

¶20

The case related to the departmental enquiry for alleged storage loss caused by the petitioner during the time when he was working in Hari Singh Unit-II Godown, FCI Zira. It appears that a committee had been constituted to examine preliminarily as to who were responsible

¶21

-2-

¶22

C.W.P. No.10127 of 2011

¶23

for the loss in various centres and based on the committee report, the charge-sheet had been issued and the proceedings were taken. Before the Enquiry Officer, the members of the Committee had been examined and it appears from the copies of record, which are placed by the petitioner that the petitioner had actually filed a reply to the chargesheet and he had also cross-examined witnesses. However, when the report was filed and the disciplinary authority passed the order, he has referred to the fact that the petitioner had not filed any reply denying the charges which showed that the substantive allegations made against him went unrefuted. The disciplinary authority made also an observation that none of the witnesses, who had come before the Enquiry Officer and made three imputations against the petitioner, were cross-examined and therefore, that also was a further proof for the fact that charge issued against the petitioner had been fully established.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out that both these assumptions on the basis of which the impugned order was passed were clearly wrong. He shows to me the cross-examination conducted on the witnesses and the PW-2, one of the committee member had admitted that reply had been given but the copy of the reply was not the part of the file. PW-3, who was another committee member, was cross-examined with reference to the particular document in original as well as in copies making out the shortages in storage and the witnesses admitted to the fact that the petitioner's name was not found in the original record but his name found interpolated in the photostat copy. The ultimate order finding the petitioner guilty has been on the basis of what was found in the photostat copy as though he

¶25

-3-

¶26

C.W.P. No.10127 of 2011

¶27

was the person incharge of the particular godown where shortage in stocks had been ascertained. The fundamental issue was whether the petitioner had been present at that time or not and whether the petitioner could have been responsible for the storage loss, as found by the Enquiry Officer and affirmed by the disciplinary authority. If proof of the fact that the petitioner was incharge of the godown itself was not brought by appropriate evidence, I cannot allow for fresh opportunity to be given to the FCI for undertaking such an exercise at this point of time. If the integrity of the documents is suspect and if there has been an interpolation made, it shall be impermissible for the Food Corporation of India to be allowed to set it correct and allow for fresh proceedings of an enquiry to go on.

¶28

The order of disciplinary authority is quashed and the recovery made against the petitioner is also consequently quashed. The plea for fresh opportunity for initiating de novo enquiry. The writ petition is allowed.

¶29

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶30

February 25, 2012 Pankaj*

Kuldip Singh v. Food Corporation of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldip Singh v. Food Corporation of India 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

Mukandi Lal Singla Vs United Commercial Bank and Anr.

Rakesh Arora Vs State of Punjab

Tarsem Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Ashok Kumar Bakshi Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Sanjeev Anand Vs U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. and Others

Rameshwar Lal Arora Vs Panjab University, Chd.