8.20 per 100 ft.
Procurement of foodgrains by the Corporation companymences from the month of April and is at its peak during the months of May and June.
The evidence shows that the appellant was companysidered to have discharged this duty so efficiently his work received high appreciation from the Head Office and the appellant was also given two advance increments under an Incentive Award Scheme.
between 28.4.1976 and 11.6.1976.
The charge against the appellant was that during the period he functioned as District Manager, Allahabad, he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion of duty and companymitted misconduct inasmuch as he showed undue favour to M s. Iqbal Ahmed Ansari by purchasing Pastramis from the said firm at the rate of Rs.
But leave to appeal having been granted, we have looked into the matter and find that in the present case the Enquiry Officer has reached his companyclusion on numberevidence and without a proper appreciation of the background and circumstances in which the appellant had to function at the relevant time.
In the absence of any instructions from the Regional Office, the appellant proceeded to acquire the mats from M s. Iqbal Ahmed Ansari who was able to supply the mats in the quantities required by the appellant.
24,900.35 to the Corporation.
metres.
By the above order, the High Court had dismissed in limine the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging his removal from the service of the Food Corporation of India hereinafter referred to as the Corporation .
This is an appeal by special leave from an order dated 2nd September 1980 of the Allahabad High Court.
During the period from December 1975 till the middle of May 1976, he also held additional charge as its District Manager at Gorakhpur.
That firm had supplied Pastramis during the month of May 1976 to the Naini and Pratapgarh Depots of the Corporation at the above rates.
This is totally meaningless as it is companymon ground that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was in charge of both Allahabad and Gorakhpur districts and, further, that the rates of supply in both these districts were the same.
This was on the basis of tenders that had been invited in February 1976.
upto 15.5.1976 and after that at Rs.
The officer numbered that the Gorakhpur office had purchased Pastramis at the same rates but he companysidered that this had been forced on the appellants successor at Gorakhpur who had numberalternative but to have the supplies already taken in by the appellant regularised.
Secondly, while it is true that it wrote a letter on 1st July, 1976 promising further supplies at the same rates, it is also an admitted fact that within five days thereafter, namely, on 5.7.1976, it had withdrawn the offer.
The appellant sent from Gorakhpur a telegram on 29.4.1976 to the Regional Office stating that numberPastramis were available at the prescribed rates and requesting that the Regional Office should either immediately supply the necessary Pastramis by road or grant permission to purchase them at market rates.
7 per 100 sq.
8.20 per 100 sq.
6.74 per 10 sq.
There was numberreply to this telegram till the 26th of May 1976.
till 11.5.1976 and Rs.
He got this done on the understanding that the firm would be paid at the rates at which the State Warehousing Corporation SWC purchased the Pastramis required by it and this is what has ultimately been done.
6.74 per 100 sq.
The grains had to be unloaded within a few hours failing which huge liability for demurrage would accumulate.
of mats.
The appellant was the District Manager of the Corporation at Allahabad from December 1975 till April 1978.
The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and, by an order dated 9.6.1980, the Board of Directors of the Corporation imposed the major penalty of removal from service on the petitioner.
At the companymencement of the season on 7.4.1976, the Regional Office of the Corporation at Lucknow had directed the District offices to purchase Pastramis at the rate of Rs.
without calling for any quotations and by ignoring the rate fixed by the Regional Manager, Lucknow at Rs.
The main criticism against the appellant was that he paid higher rates to M s. Iqbal Ahmed Ansari although M s. D.N. Purwar were prepared to supply the same companymodity at slightly above the ceiling rates prescribed by the Regional Office.
thereafter.
It is also pointed out that M s. D.N. Purwar had written a letter on 1st July, 1976 stating that it was prepared to make further supplies at the same rates.
The appellant, as the District Manager at Allahabad and Gorakhpur, had to procure a huge quantity of Pastramis with maximum expedition during a short period.
He found that the appellant knew that another firm, M s. D.N. Purwar, had supplied two companysignments at the rate of Rs.
It is on record that this firms supply was to the tune of 11,90,570 sq.
The Corporation purchased Pastramis for the purpose of storing foodgrains in its godowns and preventing the grains from being affected by dampness.
7 per 100 sq.
Several companytentions had been raised in the petition for special leave to the Court.
The Enquiry Officer makes a point that the appellant had number placed any evidence before him showing that he had informed the Regional Office in his capacity as District Manager, Allahabad that he was number in a position to get supplies at the ceiling rates.
An inquiry on the above charge was companyducted by an officer of the Central Vigilance Commission.
6.74 per 10 square metres and thus caused total loss of Rs.
He, therefore, held that the charge against the appellant was substantiated by the evidence.
In the first place, M s. Purwar was obviously a small scale supplier who had supplied only 55,530 sq.
slightly above the ceiling prescribed by the Regional Office and that this firm had also given a letter on 1.7.1976 expressing its willingness to supply more Pastramis on the same rates, terms and companyditions But despite this, the appellant had number made any attempts to negotiate and settle any rate with M s. Iqbal Ahmed Ansari but agreed to give the said supplier the rate demanded by him on 16.7.1976 viz.
