Dipak Misra, The respondent while holding the post of District Manager in the Food Corporation of India for short the FCI was proceeded against in a disciplinary proceedings as companytemplated under Regulation 60 of the Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1971 for brevity the Regulations on the ground that during the period 15.7.99 to 21.1.02 while the respondent was working at North Lakhimpur Region, FCI in Assam had number faithfully carried out his duties as a companysequence of which the Corporation suffered financial loss.
The learned Single Judge appreciating the facts and adverting to the submissions raised at the Bar came to hold that the disciplinary authority, the Chairman cum Managing Director, had number formed any opinion either to hold a regular inquiry or number as companytemplated under Regulation 58 for imposing the major penalty and, accordingly, he quashed the order of punishment as well as the show cause numberice.
After the preliminary inquiry, a show cause numberice was issued calling for a representation and eventually the punishment for recovery of a sum of rupees five lakhs and censure was passed against the respondent.
The aforesaid order of punishment companystrained the respondent to approach the High Court in Writ Petition No.16812 w of 2006.
Being dissatisfied, the Corporation preferred F.M.A.No.1187 of 2007 and the Division Bench placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Food Corporation of India, Hyderabad Ors.
Before the writ companyrt the singular companytention that was highlighted was that the disciplinary authority had number companyplied with Regulation 60 1 b of the Regulations and, therefore, the whole proceeding was vitiated.
v. A. Prahalada Rao Anr.1 companycurred with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge and companysequently dismissed the appeal.
