In this second appeal regarding a dismissal order under FCI Staff Regulations, the High Court held that the appeal fails as it raises no substantial question of law. The Court affirmed that due process was followed and findings of fact by Courts below were not perverse.
The appeal was dismissed. No job reinstatement or service benefits were granted.
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.
-1-
RSA No.2083 of 2011 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2083 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:17.02.2012
R.C. Dutta, Ex-Assistant Grade I, FCI
......Appellant
Vs.
Food Corporation of India and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. S.K. Chawla, Advocate for the appellant.
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
The plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remain unsuccessful in both the Courts below.
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the Food Corporation of India, impugning the order dated 01.08.2001 passed by the Senior Regional Manager whereby, the penalty of dismissal from service had been imposed upon him as also order dated 06/11.03.2002, whereby, the dismissal order had been upheld in appeal by the Zonal Manager, FCI. The plaintiff pleaded that such orders were illegal, unlawful and violative of the principles of natural justice and that the plaintiff was accordingly, entitled to all service benefits and consequential benefits upon reinstatement. The defendant-FCI filed written statement, taking of a plea that the plaintiff had violated the departmental instructions and had without segregation and up-gradation of the stored food grains, sent the
RSA No.2083 of 2011 (O&M)
-2-
consignment thereof which was found to be contaminated and rain affected. Accordingly, inquiry proceedings had been initiated and it has been only upon the plaintiff having been held guilty that the orders imposing the penalty of dismissal have been based.
On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following crucial issues:
“Whether the order dated 01.08.2001 upheld vide order dated 06/11.03.2002 is liable to be set aside as alleged? OPP
The trial Court upon appreciation of evidence and having heard respective counsel for the parties, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff/appellant preferred the second appeal, which has also suffered a similar fate in terms of judgment dated 27.11.2010 passed by District Judge, Faridkot.
I have heard Mr. S.K. Chawla, Advocate, for the appellant at
length.
It is well settled that the scope of judicial scrutiny in matters of departmental proceedings culminating in an order of dismissal would be confined primarily to the decision making process and not with the decision itself. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the due process in relation to departmental proceedings as envisaged under the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, had been resorted to prior to imposing the major penalty of dismissal upon the plaintiff/appellant.
Suffice it to notice that specific article of charges had been formulated and served upon the plaintiff/appellant. Such charge memo was inclusive of the statement of imputations, list of witnesses as also the documents that were to be relied upon in support of the charges. The Enquiry Officer, so appointed had also fully adhered to the principle of
RSA No.2083 of 2011 (O&M)
-3-
equity and fair-play and had granted complete opportunity to the plaintiff/appellant due the inquiry proceedings. Upon findings having been returned against the plaintiff/appellant, he had also been afforded opportunity of personal hearing prior to the passing of the impugned order. The plaintiff/appellant could not lead any evidence to show any illegality or irregularity in the departmental proceedings initiated and conducted against him by his employer. The concurrent finding of both the Courts below is to the effect that the impugned orders had been passed upon the plaintiff/appellant after having been given complete and effective opportunity.
Learned counsel has not been able to show any perversity in the findings of the Courts below. Such finding of fact would be binding on the High Court while exercising jurisdiction in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The present second appeal deserves to fail as it does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law.
The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
February 17, 2012 harjeet
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE
Note: Whether to be reported?
No
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal raising findings of fact in departmental proceedings discloses any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Whether the due process under FCI Staff Regulations was adhered to during the inquiry leading to dismissal from service.
Whether the findings of fact by Courts below regarding the legality of the dismissal order are perversely drawn.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.C. Dutta
Food Corporation of India
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
