Page 1 of 42

REPORTABLE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

W.A. No. 19 of 2023

[Ref.: W.P.(C) No. 581 of 2020]

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Food

Corporation of India, Headquarters, 16 -20,

Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi – 110001.

2. The General Manager (Personnel & Estt.) Food

Corporation of India, Headquarters, 16 -20,

Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi -110001.

3. The Executive Director (NE), Food Corporation of

India, Zonal Office, NE Zone, GS Road, Ullubari,

Guwahati – 781007.

4. The Deputy General Manager (Region), Food

Corporation of India, Regional Office, Old Assembly

Office Complex, Imphal- 795001.

…… Appellants

- Versus -

Dr. S. James, aged about 63 years, S/o Late S.

Manikchan, R/o Riha Village, P.O. & P.S. Litan,

District Kamjong, Manipur, presently residing at

Peace Valley, Mantripukhri, Imphal East.

….. Respondent

with

MC(W.A.) No. 34 of 2023

[Ref: Writ Appeal No. 19 of 2023

Ref: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 581 of 2020]

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Food

Corporation of India, Headquarter, 16-20,

Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi – 110001.

Page 2 of 42

2. The General Manager (Pers. & Estt.) Food

Corporation of India, Headquarters, 16-20,

Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi -110001.

3. The Executive Director (NE), Food Corporation of

India, Zonal Office, NE Zone, GS Road, Ullubari,

Guwahati – 781007.

4. The Deputy General Manager (Region), Food

Corporation of India, Regional Office, Old

Assembly Office Complex, Imphal- 795001.

….. Applicants

- Versus -

Dr. S. James, aged about 63 years, S/o Late S.

Manikchan, R/o Riha Village, P.O. & P.S. Litan,

District Kamjong, Manipur, presently residing at

Peace Valley, Mantripukhri, Imphal East.

….. Respondent

with

MC(W.A.) No. 35 of 2023

[Ref: Writ Appeal No. 20 of 2023

Ref: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 465 of 2021]

1. Food Corporation of India Rep. by the Chairman

and Managing Director, Food Corporation of

India, Headquarter, 16-20, Barakhamba Lane,

New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Executive Director (NE), Food Corporation of

India, Zonal Office, NE Zone, GS Road, Ullubari,

Guwahati – 781007.

3. The Deputy General Manager (Region), Food

Corporation of India, Regional Office, Old

Assembly Office Complex, Imphal- 795001.

….. Applicants

- Versus -

Dr. S. James, aged about 63 years, S/o Late S.

Manikchan, R/o Riha Village, P.O. & P.S. Litan,

District Kamjong, Manipur, presently residing at

Peace Valley, Mantripukhri, Imphal East.

….. Respondent

Page 3 of 42

with

MC(W.A.) No. 53 of 2023

[Ref: W.A. No. 19 of 2023 with MC(WA) No. 34 of 2023 &

W.A. No. 20 of 2023 with MC(WA) No. 35 of 2023]

Dr. S. James, aged about 63 years, S/o Late S.

Manikchan, a resident of Riha Village, P.O. & P.S.

Litan, Kamjong District, Manipur, presently residing at

Peace Valley, Mantripukhri, Imphal East.

….. Applicant

- Versus -

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Food

Corporation of India, Headquarters, 16 -20,

Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi – 110001.

2. The General Manager (Pers. & Estt .) Food

Corporation of India, Headquarters, 16 -20,

Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi -110001.

3. The Executive Director (NE), Food Corporation of

India, Zonal Office, NE Zone, GS Road, Ullubari,

Guwahati – 781007.

4. The Deputy General Manager (Region), Food

Corporation of India, Regional Office, Old Assembly

Office Complex, Imphal- 795001.

….. Respondents

with

W.A. No. 20 of 2023

[Ref.: W.P.(C) No. 465 of 2021]

1. Food Corporation of India Represented by the

Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation

of India, Headquarter, 16-20, Barakhamba Lane,

New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Executive Director (NE), Food Corporation of

India, Zonal Office, NE Zone, GS Road, Ullubari,

Guwahati – 781007.

Page 4 of 42

3. The Deputy General Manager (Region), Food

Corporation of India, Regional Office, Old Assembly

Office Complex, Imphal- 795001.

….. Appellants

- Versus -

Dr. S. James, aged about 63 years, S/o Late S.

Manikchan, R/o Riha Village, P.O. & P.S. Litan, District

Kamjong, Manipur, presently residing at Peace Valley,

Mantripukhri, Imphal East.

….. Respondent

BEFORE

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA

For the appellants in W.A. No. 19 of

2023 and W.A. No. 20 of 2023

For the applicants in MC(WA) No. 34

of 2023 and MC(WA) No. 35 of 2023

And

For the respondents in MC(WA) No.

53 of 2023

Mr. D. Julius Riamei, Advocate

along with Ms. Thonrin YK

Thangal, Advocate

Sole respondent in W.A. No. 19 of

2023 and W.A. No. 20 of 2023,

MC(WA) No. 34 of 2023 and MC(WA)

No. 35 of 2023

And

applicant in MC(WA) No. 53 of 2023

Mr. Dr. S. James, party in-

person

Judgment/order reserved on 29.05.2026

Date of Judgment & Order 12.06.2026

Page 5 of 42

JUDGMENT & ORDER

(CAV)

[M. Sundar, CJ]

[1] The following Abbreviations/Short Forms/short

references for the sake of brevity/convenience and clarity are used

in this order:

Sl.

No.

Abbreviation/

Short Form/reference

for the sake of brevity/

convenience and

clarity

Full Form/Expansion

1. said Act Food Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of

1964)

2. said Regulation Food Corporation of India (Staff)

Regulations, 1971

3. FCI Food Corporation of India

4. WA Writ Appeal

5. WAs Writ Appeals

6. MC Miscellaneous Case

7. MCs Miscellaneous Cases

8. WP Writ Petition

9. WPs Writ Petitions

10. ARP Annual Performance Report

11. FSD Food Storage Depot

12. MTF Model Tender Form

13. NIT Notice Inviting Tender

14. MD Managing Director

15. DP Disciplinary Proceeding

16. DGM Deputy General Manager

17. Common judgment/ order

dated 10.01.2023 made

by a Hon’ble Single Bench

in WP(C) No. 581 of 2020

and WP(C) No. 465 of

2021

Impugned order

[2] This common order will now dispose of captioned 2

(two) WAs and captioned 3 (three) MCs thereat.

Page 6 of 42

[3] Factual matrix in a nutshell i.e., short facts shorn of

elaboration and details not imperative for appreciating instant

common order are that the respondent in captioned WAs served

and retired as Deputy General Manager (Genl.) from FCI; that while

in service, FCI on 11.10.2018 initiated disciplinary proceedings

against respondent vide a memorandum dated 11.10.2018 bearing

reference No. Vig.4(35)/2018/Ne/2997 issued by the MD of FCI;

that vide this memorandum dated 11.10.2018, 7 (seven) Articles

of charges were famed; that post Departmental Inquiry, Managing

Director of FCI made an order in February of 2020, to be noted,

this order bears a date which reads as 10/13.02.2020 and this Court

is informed that the date of order is 10.02.2020 and it was signed

by MD on 13.02.2020, therefore for convenience, this Court also

refers to date of this order as 10/13.02.2020 and this order bears

reference No. Vig.4(35)/2018/NE/312; that in and vide this

10/13.02.2020 order, MD of FCI, exercising powers inter-alia under

Regulation 56 of said Regulations imposed a penalty of reduction

to lower time scale of pay by 3 (three) stages with cumulative effect

from 10.02.2020 and further held that the reduction to time scale

of pay will have effect on pension and terminal benefit also; that

respondent preferred an appeal inter-alia under Regulation 67 of

said Regulations against this punishment and this appeal is dated

Page 7 of 42

20.03.2020; that the appellate authority according to FCI as per

said Regulations is Chairman of FCI; that pending such appeal,

memo of charges dated 29.09.2020 was issued by the MD vide a

memorandum dated 29.09.2020 bearing reference No. PF/J-

217/E.I/Part. I; that vide this memorandum, inquiry was kicked

started against the respondent qua allegation that property

transactions as reflected in the APR have not been noted down in

the service record and this was as regards APR for the years 1997

to 2000, 2002, 2003, 2007, 2010 to 2012, 2014 and 2016; that

pursuant to this memo of charges dated 29.09.2020, an order of

censure was made on 28.10.2020 by the MD; that thereafter

respondent on 03.11.2020 filed W.P.(C) No. 581 of 2020 inter-alia

assailing 29.09.2020 memorandum besides seeking payment of

gratuity and other benefits; that thereafter the respondent

preferred another appeal under Regulation 67 of said Regulations

being appeal dated 19.01.2021; that in the interregnum respondent

filed W.P.(C) No. 371 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No. 106 of 2020 and the

same came to be disposed of by a Hon’ble Single Bench on

19.04.2021 inter-alia directing the appeal to be expedited; that

thereafter on 24.06.2021 the Chairman of FCI made an order

rejecting the Regulation 67 appeals; that assailing such rejection,

respondent filed a writ petition on 07.07.2021 being W.P.(C) No.

Page 8 of 42

465 of 2021, in this writ petition respondent assailed 24.06.2021

order dismissing the appeals and sought setting aside of the

punishment of reduction to lower time scale of pay by 3 (three)

stages with cumulative effect from 10.02.2020 and the further part

of the punishment that rejection will have effect on pension and

terminal benefits also; that two writ petitions namely W.P.(C) No.

581 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No. 465 of 2021 were heard out in full by

a Hon’ble Single Bench and after full contest a Hon’ble Single Bench

in and vide a common order dated 10.01.2023 (impugned order)

allowed both writ petitions filed by the respondent; that FCI

contending that it is aggrieved by 10.01.2023 common order of

Hon’ble Single Bench i.e., impugned order has preferred the

captioned 2 (two) WAs along with captioned 2 (two) MCs thereat

being MC(WA) No. 34 of 2023 and MC(WA) No. 35 of 2023 seeking

interim prayers; that interim prayers were granted on 24.02.2023;

that thereafter the respondent filed captioned MC(WA) No. 53 of

2023 with a prayer to vacate the 24.02.2023 interim order; that

after completion of pleadings, captioned 2 (two) WAs and captioned

3 (three) MCs were before this Division Bench; that this Division

Bench heard out the captioned matter in full.

[4] As would be evident from the factual matrix set out

supra, respondent was inflicted with punishment vide

Page 9 of 42

10/13.02.2020 order accepting report of the inquiry officer. To be

noted, report of the inquiry officer was accepted by MD, FCI and

MD, FCI made 10/13.02.2020 order. It is also evident from factual

matrix set out supra that DP was initiated qua 7 (seven) Articles of

charges. Out of the 7 (seven) Articles of charges, the inquiry officer

returned a report saying that 2 (two) Articles of charges namely

Articles I and III stood proved and remaining 5 (five) charges have

not been proved. FCI has accepted the report, therefore this Court

refrains from burdening this order with details of 5 (five) charges

which were not proved. As regards the 2 (two) charges that were

proved, 1 (one) charge was that with regard to a two part tender

for transportation from Jiribam Rail Head to FSD godown.

Respondent re-evaluated the technical bid after opening of the

financial bid is the charge. The other charge was that when

mementos were given to Parliamentary Standing Committee

Members, 2 (two) books written/authored by the respondent were

included in the mementos but the respondent who was chairperson

of programme committee did not disclose it to the programme

committee.

It may be relevant to reproduce Charge Articles – I and

III against the respondent herein for the sake of clarity and better

understanding:

Page 10 of 42

‘Article – I:

FCI, Headquarters Vigilance Squad vide their report

dated 16.01.2018 pointed out irregularity in the tendering

process in RO, Manipur. As per point no. 9 of the MTF issued by

RO, Manipur vide the NIT No. Cont./HC/FSD Jiribam/RO-

MAN/2017, "Opening of tenders", it is categorically mentioned

that "The technical bids will be opened online first, in the

office/offices of the Food Corporation of India, at the fixed time

and date indicated in the NIT. The tenderer will be at liberty to

be present either in person or through an authorized

representative at the time of opening of Technical Bid with the

Bid Acknowledgement Receipt or they can view the bid opening

event online at their remote end. Price bids of only those

tenderers shall be opened whose technical bids qualify at a time

and place of which notice will be given. The tenderer Technically

qualified will be at liberty to be present either in person or

through an authorized representative at the time of opening of

the Price Bids with the Bid Acknowledgement Receipt or they can

view the bid opening event online at their remote end". However,

in the said tendering process in RO, Manipur, the irregularities

were observed to have taken place from the RO-Manipur

Contract Division file no. Cont./HC/FSD-Jiribam/RO-MAN/2017,

specifically re-evaluation of technical bids after opening of Price

bid and appointing the technically dis-qualified tenderer during

the initial re-evaluation in the 2nd attempt, which are in

contravention to the Storage & Contract Manual.

Moreover, Dr. S. James Singh, being the DGM (Region)

nominated a technical re-evaluation committee consisting of

Area Manager and 2 (two) Cat-II Officers, whereas, ample

numbers of AGM ranked officers were available in RO-Manipur

during the material period. Further, Dr. S. James before

accepting the tender and issuing the acceptance order to M/s

N.R. Mathal Enterprises, never endorsed the file to his finance

associate (i.e. AGM(F&A)) for financial concurrence.

The above act of Dr. S. James Singh, D.G.M (Region),

Manipur is in contravention to the relevant rules, common ethics

and the aforesaid rule as per MTF.

Article-III:

Hqrs Vigilance Squad report dated 16.01.2018 pointed out

Irregularitles in purchase of two books. Dr. S. James Singh vide

ION No. PA/DGM(R)/MAN/2017 dated 02.11.2017 requested

Manager (H/k) RO-Manipur for reimbursement of Rs. 69,900/-

i.r.o. purchase of two books which were given as Mementos to

the members during the Study visit of the Parliamentary Standing

Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution at

Imphal from 06.11.2017 to 10.11.2017.

For the above irregularities, SCN dated: 24.01.2018 was

issued to Dr. S. James Singh. Further, Dr. James vide his reply

Page 11 of 42

dated 02.02.2018 submitted that during a meeting with

officers/officials of RO, Manipur, DO Imphal and Director,

CAF&PD, Govt. of Manipur, Imphal, held in the chamber of Dy.

General Manager (Region), Manipur on 24.10.2017 wherein Dr.

S. James, Dy. General Manager (Region), Manipur was the

Chairperson of Programme Committee, it was decided to give

Mementos to the Parliamentary Standing Committee members,

higher officers from Ministry and FCI along with two books of

which were written by Dr. S. James himself.

Upon examination of reply dated 02.02.2018, it has been

observed that Dr. S. James, being the DGM (Region) was the

Chairperson of Programme Committee, and thereby, it was his

prime responsibility to withheld any decision that are

inappropriate as per FCI rules and regulations, since distribution

of self-authored book as memento to the Parliamentary

Committee members is deemed to be an act of self-advocacy of

his creation and by claiming reimbursement from FCI for such

purchase is tantamount to benefiting himself only.

The above act of irregularities is in contravention to the

aforesaid FCI Staff Regulation by misusing official capacity for

ulterior motives on part of Dr. S. James which is inappropriate as

per FCI Staff Regulation.’

[5] Before proceeding further, it is necessary to write that

both sides i.e., FCI and the respondent fairly submitted in one voice

in unison that if the question of punishment vide 10/13.02.2020

order of MD on the afore-referred two proved charges is quashed

and if the order dated 24.06.2021 made by the Chairman rejecting

the appeal against the same is set aside, the gratuity and

pensionary benefits sought for in the two writ petitions will

follow/flow as consequence. This has been clearly recorded in

proceedings made by this Court in the listing on 29.05.2026 when

orders were reserved and the proceedings made on 29.05.2026

reads as follows:

Page 12 of 42

‘29.05.2026

[1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of

earlier proceedings made in the previous listing.

[2] Today, Mr. Dr. S. James, respondent party in-person

continued and concluded his submissions in full.

[3] Mr. D. Julius Riamei (along with Ms. Thonrin YK Thangal),

learned counsel for appellants made his reply submissions.

Captioned matter heard out in full.

[4] The undisputed position as between the parties before

this Court is absent punishment dated 10/13.02.2020,

respondent would be entitled to all the pecuniary, pensionary and

other benefits which he has sought for in the writ petitions,

namely W.P.(C) No. 581 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No. 465 of 2021.

This undisputed obtaining position as between the parties is

recorded.

[5] Captioned matter will now stand over for consideration

and verdict (CAV). To put it differently judgment/orders

reserved.’

[6] In the light of the above, this Division Bench ploughed

into the afore referred two charges and punishment besides the

appeal against the punishment and order thereat.

[7] As regards the first charge pertaining to tender, a

careful perusal of the charge makes it clear that it merely says that

re-evaluation of technical bids after opening of financial bids is

contrary to MTF and point nine thereat but to be noted, the MTF is

not before this Court. Be that as it may, the report of inquiry officer

is also not before this Court. MTF is merely a template and it does

not have any statutory force. Therefore, the charge itself is vague

besides being not founded on any ground of violation of any rule

requirement or codified conduct. Be that as it may, as already

Page 13 of 42

alluded to supra, the tender itself was for handling food grains at

FCI FSD Jiribam, Manipur. This Court is informed by both sides

without any disputation that handling of food grains merely means

loading, unloading and moving the food grains from rail

wagons/bogies to godown at Jiribam. The nature of the tender by

itself brings to light that there is very little nay little i.e., no scope

for any technical evaluation. Another part of this Article of charge

is that the respondent nominated a technical re-evaluation

committee consisting of area manager and two other officers while

DGM rank officers were available in the regional office of FCI in

Manipur during the material point of time. This, in effect means that

the respondent appointed a re-evaluation committee consisting of

managers of a particular rank when managers of a higher rank were

available.

[8] In the light of there being very little disputation or

contestation about the nature and scope of the tender, re-

evaluation itself is a non-starter. This part of the Article of charge

does not merit any attention. This Court has no hesitation in writing

that there is no real scope, much less scope for evaluation of the

technical bid as even according to NIT, the technical bid evaluation

merely is an exercise of verifying 12 (twelve) uploaded documents

Page 14 of 42

and adumbration of these 12 (twelve) documents has been given

in clause (5) of NIT and reproduction of the same is as follows:

‘5. List of Document is to be uploaded in Technical Bid

folder / cover

i. Scanned copy of proof of payment of fee for cost of

tender form and EMD. The details of center along

with their corresponding EMD is to be mentioned

therein.

ii. Scanned copy of “TENDER SUBMISSION

UNDERTAKING” accepting terms and conditions of

the tender.

iii. Scanned copy of “Forwarding letter” as per

appendix – I of MTF duly filled and signed.

iv. Scanned copy of “Details of Tenderer” as per

appendix – II of MTF duly filled and signed.

v. Scanned copy of undertaking by the tenderer, if

applicable, stating that an additional Performance

Guarantee in the form of Bank Guarantee of 10%

of the contract value from SBI & Its Associate

Banks/the other Public Sector Banks will be given,

if selected. The format of the Bank Guarantee to be

provided in such cases is at Appendix – V of MTF.

vi. Scanned and Attested copy of Registered Deed of

Partnership/Memorandum and Articles of

Association/By-laws/Certificate of Registration etc.

as applicable.

vii. Scanned copy of Power of Attorney of person

signing the tender (as per MTF Clause 5(b)).

viii. Scanned copy of Certificate of experience and

details thereof as per MTF.

ix. Scanned copy of Duly audited P & L account and

Balance Sheet of relevance completed years for

which experience certificate has been submitted by

the tenderer.

x. Scanned copy of Income Tax Return/PAN Card.

Page 15 of 42

xi. Copy of EPF Code No. and proof of deposit of EPF

for the relevant experienced period (for HC) if

applicable.

xii. Any other document as per MTF, if applicable.’

[9] The above makes it clear that evaluation in any sense

of the term really does not arise and therefore re-evaluation is a

non starter. In any event, in the hearing, there is no disputation

that DGM has discretionary powers to invite bidders other than L-1

and negotiate with them in larger public interest and in the interest

of FCI. Such a discretionary power being conferred on the DGM by

its very nature includes a relook at the technical bids after opening

of financial bids. As an illustration, if the DGM invites L-2 and L-3

and negotiates as regards L-2 and L-3 matching L-1, the question

of some aspects of technical bid not being left out in the bargain

necessarily needs to be gone into. This Court refrains from

ploughing further into the matter, as, as already alluded to supra,

the report of inquiry officer is not before this Court, it was not

before the Single Bench also and all that we are concerned with is

the punishment dated 10/13.02.2020, Regulation 67 appeal against

such punishment and dismissal of the appeal by the chairman on

24.06.2021 which has been assailed.

[10] As regards the second charge (Article-III), as already

alluded to supra, the charge is that the respondent, as Chairman of

Page 16 of 42

the Programme Committee did not disclose to the Committee at the

time of deciding about mementoes to Parliamentary Committee

that the mementoes included 2 (two) books authored by the

respondent. To be noted, the mementoes are 2 (two) books (50

copies each), 30 wrist watches and 31 Executive Bags. A careful

perusal of the minutes of the Programme Committee brings to light

that as regards 30 wrist watches, the brand itself has been

mentioned. We refrain from mentioning the brand in this order.

However, as regards executive bags, no brand has been mentioned.

We also find that the Programme Committee consists of as many

as 33 members other than the respondent. All 33 members have

signed minutes of the meeting on 24.10.2017. In this minutes,

purchase of the 3 (three) sets of mementoes has been clearly set

out and it is no argument to say that as many as 33 members (other

than the respondent) signed the minutes without even knowing the

title and author of the two books which is one of the three sets of

mementoes. In any event, this Court finds that no rule violation has

been mentioned either with clarity or specificity. All that has been

alleged is, the respondent embarked upon self-promotion and also

ultimately got the cost of the books reimbursed. In this regard, it is

pertinent to write that There is nothing to demonstrate that the

books were authored by the respondent while in service in

Page 17 of 42

contravention of any rule. In other words, FCI has no grievance

about the respondent authoring the two books. To be noted, there

is no charge that the respondent sought reimbursement qua prices

of the 2 (two) books given as mementoes in excess of the cover

price. The respondent, in any case, only gets royalty from the

publisher and any profits qua the cover price sale of the books goes

to the publisher. To be noted, respondent is not the publisher of

either of the books and he is only the author. In such

circumstances, the two books having been authored and having hit

the book stores (not only in India but in other parts of the world

too) and the two books being available for circulation/sale in book

stores there is absolutely no shred of violation of any Rule,

Regulation or codified conduct.

[11] This Court having set out its considered views on the

two charges finds that the order of MD dated 10/13.02.2020 merely

accepts the enquiry report without mentioning anything about why

the report is being accepted and has straightway imposed a

punishment/penalty of reduction to a lower time scale of pay by 3

(three) stages with cumulative effect with effect from 10.02.2020

(besides holding that the reduction in time scale of pay will have

effect on respondent’s pension and terminal benefits also) without

any discussion much less about proportionality. To be noted, be

Page 18 of 42

that as it may, it is pertinent to note that said Regulations do not

provide for the punishment/penalty that has been imposed. The

punishment/penalty appears to be an innovation of the MD who

made the 10/13.02.2020 order. Proportionality point was urged in

respondent’s Regulation 67 appeal but the order of the Chairman

of FCI dated 24.06.2021 rejecting the appeal does not discuss

proportionality and it merely brushes aside the appeal by saying

that the respondent has raised some superfluous issues about the

enquiry officer which according to appellate authority is an

afterthought. Therefore, the 24.06.2021 order made by the

Chairman rejecting/dismissing the Regulation 67 appeal of the

respondent is also bereft of dispositive reasoning.

[12] In the aforesaid scenario, Hon’ble Single Bench has

gone into the matter in great detail and inter-alia returned a finding

that the conclusions/findings are such that no reasonable person

would ever reach such findings and thus interfered with the

punishment as well as the order dismissing the said Regulation 67

appeal.

[13] This takes this Court to one intriguing aspect of the

matter. This is captured in paragraph 24 of the impugned order

made by the Hon’ble Single Bench and the same reads as follows :

Page 19 of 42

[14] There is disputation about whether Mr. D.V. Prasad

who made the order of punishment heard the appeal on VC (Video

Conferencing) on 03.05.2021 at 2 P.M. Therefore, we test this

aspect of bias qua appellate authority without going into this factual

disputation. A careful perusal of said Regulations makes it clear

that Regulation 67 provides for appeals, Regulation 68 gives an

adumbration of the orders against which appeals lie and Regulation

69 (Regulation 69 read with Appendix-II of said Regulations)

prescribes ‘appellate authorities’. Regulations 54, 67, 68, 69 and

Appendix-II read as follows :

Page 20 of 42

Page 21 of 42

Page 22 of 42

Page 23 of 42

[15] The papers placed before this Court in the hearing as

additional parts of the paper books bring to light that one Mr. DV

Prasad assumed charge as Chairman and Managing Director of FCI

on 01.01.2019, he continued in office till 30.11.2020 and thereafter,

Mr. Atish Chandra assumed office as Chairman and Managing

Director on 30.03.2021 and he continued till 05.05.2022. A roll of

FCI and ‘Chairmen and Managing Directors’ displayed in the FCI

office has been photographed and placed before this Court as part

of the typeset of papers and scanned reproduction of the same is

as follows :

Page 24 of 42

To be noted, the above (photograph and factual

contents) is not disputed by FCI. Therefore, as regards the original

authority imposing punishment and the appellate authority being

same and bias in this regard in DP, the following points comes to

the fore :

i) Orders dated 01.01.2019 and 31.03.2021 vide

which Mr. DV Prasad and Mr. Atish Chandra

respectively assumed charge have been placed

Page 25 of 42

before us. A careful perusal of these two orders

makes it clear that both have assumed charge to

one post and that one post is ‘Chairman and

Managing Director’. Scanned reproduction of these

two orders is as follows :

Page 26 of 42

ii) In the case at hand, the first of the Regulation

67 appeals is dated 20.03.2020 and this is

directed against 10/13/02/2020 order of

punishment order. This 10/13/02/2020 order of

Page 27 of 42

punishment was made by Mr. DV Prasad in his

capacity as MD but on 20.03.2022 when the

appeal was presented Mr. DV Prasad continued

to be the Chairman. Therefore, the question of

whether Mr. DV Prasad heard the appeal (or not)

through VC on 03.05.2021 at 2:00 PM pales into

insignificance. The reason is, appeal was

presented to the same individual i.e., same

incumbent who made the order of punishment.

This is clearly a case of Ceasar to Ceasar.

iii) Appellate authority, while examining an appeal

as Chairman continues to discharge duties as an

MD also. Therefore, even on a demurer, at any

given point of time, the same incumbent holds

the offices of MD as well as Chairman (on a

demurer because assumption of office orders

describe it as one post i.e., ‘Chairman and

Managing Director’). This by itself is perceived

bias.

iv) With the retirement of Mr. DV Prasad as

Chairman and MD of FCI after passing of the

impugned order of punishment dated

Page 28 of 42

10/13.02.2020 and Mr. Atish Chandra who

succeeded as Chairman and MD of FCI and

decided the appeal, the question of personal

bias may not, as such, exist; however the

perceived institutional bias will still remain. One

Chairman and MD will hear and decide the

appeal as Chairman against an order passed by

another Chairman and MD in the capacity of MD.

It may be noted that one person always holds

both posts of Chairman and MD in the FCI as

seen from the roll of Chairman and MD and in

any event the charge assumption orders cited

supra refers to ‘Chairman and MD’ as ‘post’ in

singular.

[17] Reverting to the impugned order made by the Hon’ble

Single Bench, Hon’ble Single Bench, after ploughing into the two

(proved) charges, the order of punishment made by MD as well as

the order of Chairman rejecting the Regulation 67 appeals has

interfered by saying that the enquiry officer has a conclusion which

no reasonable person would have arrived at. Besides this, the Single

Bench has also embarked upon the legal drill of examining all the

pensionary benefit details and acceded to the prayers in this regard.

Page 29 of 42

In this intra-court appeal, as both sides have fairly agreed that

absent 10/13.02.2020 punishment all the pensionary benefits,

retirement benefits and other benefits/monetary benefits which the

respondent has sought for in the two writ petitions are there for the

asking, this Court deems it appropriate to not to burden this order

with these details. To be noted, except saying that Shri D.V. Prasad

did not conduct personal hearing on VC on 03.05.2021 at 2:00 PM

as set out in paragraph 24 of Single Bench order, there is no ground

of substance that persuades this Court to interfere with Single

Bench order. As this Court has tested bias dehors paragraph 24 of

Single Bench order and come to the conclusion that there is

perceived bias and institutional bias, we have not hesitation in

writing that Single Bench order does not warrant interference.

The impugned order of punishment of reduction to

lower time scale of pay by three stages with cumulative effect

passed by MD vide order dated 10/13.02.2020 and affirmed by the

Chairman in appeal order dated 24.06.2021 cannot be sustained as

such punishment is not prescribed in Regulation 54 of the said

Regulation. In the case of Vijay Singh -vs- State of Uttar

Pradesh [(2012) 5 SCC 242] factual matrix is, while serving as

Sub-Inspector of Police it was alleged that the delinquent had not

recorded the past criminal history while arresting and investigating

Page 30 of 42

a case. On a preliminary enquiry, delinquent was show caused as

to why his integrity certificate for year 2010 should not be withheld.

In Vijay Singh, at paragraph No. 11, Hon’ble Supreme Court held

that the punishment of withholding integrity certificate of an

employee as a punishment was held to be without any jurisdiction,

as such punishment was not prescribed by relevant rules. In the

present case also, punishment awarded against the respondent

herein has not been prescribed as one of the penalties under

Regulation 54. Moreover, the charges against the respondent are

vague and lack clarity about infringement of any provisions of

relevant service rules and punishment on the basis of such vague

charges cannot be sustained. In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Union of India -vs- Gyan Chand Chatar [(2009)

12 SCC 78] at paragraph No. 35, held that no enquiry can be

sustained on vague charges. On facts, Gyan Chand is a case

where delinquent while serving as Shroff in Western Railway and

travelling in a train was charge sheeted inter alia for travelling in

first class without being entitled to do so, played cards with Railway

Police personnel and failed to convince staff who demanded pay

allowances. Principle in Gyan Chand is, enquiry has to be

conducted fairly, with objectivity and not driven by subjectivity.

Findings should neither be perverse/ unreasonable nor be based on

Page 31 of 42

conjectures and surmises. There is a distinction between proof and

suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent

cannot be a misconduct. The authority must record reasons for

arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining

the misconduct.

[18] This takes this legal drill to the case laws that were

pressed in to service by both sides. On the side of appellant/FCI, 6

(six) case laws were pressed into service and adumbration of the

same is as follows:

(i) Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now

Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) & Anr.

-vs- Rajendra Singh [(2013) 12 SCC 372];

(ii) Union of India & Ors. -vs- P. Gunasekaran

[(2015) 2 SCC] 610;

(iii) Chief Executive Officer, Krishna District

Cooperative Central Bank Limited & Anr. -vs-

K. Hanumantha Rao & Anr. (2017) 2 SCC 528];

(iv) State of Karnataka & Anr. -vs- N. Gangaraj

[2020) 3 SCC 423];

(v) Union of India & Ors. -vs- Dalbir Singh [(2021)

11 SCC 321] and

(vi) State of Karnataka & Anr. -vs- Umesh [(2022)

6 SCC 563].

Common proposition for which the case laws were

pressed into service is that Courts exercising judicial review qua

disciplinary proceedings should not act as appellate authorities, re-

Page 32 of 42

appreciate evidence and substitute a specific penalty with another

penalty.

As regards Rajendra Singh supra , on facts, it was a

case of 6 (six) bank employees being issued with identical charge

sheets. While 3(three) employees who maintained their innocence

were found guilty and dismissed from service, 3 (three) other

employees who later admitted their guilt and apologised, were left

out with a lighter penalty of pay reduction. The Allahabad High

Court directed the bank to give the dismissed employees the same

lighter punishment by resorting to the principle of parity. Therefore,

this Court has no hesitation in respectfully writing that Rajendra

Singh is clearly distinguishable on facts as this is not the case of

parity as between delinquents. Therefore, Rajendra Singh does

not come to the aid of appellant/FCI.

As regards P. Gunasekaran, on facts, an individual

working as Deputy Office Superintendent in the Central Excise

Department while under suspension from his regular duties stood

at a local bus stand, pretended to be a high ranking Central Excise

Executive Officer boarded a public bus, searched in the luggage of

ordinary passengers (without any authority) threatened the

passengers and extorting money. In the DP, the delinquent was

found guilty of gross misconduct and was dismissed from service.

Page 33 of 42

On appeal, the departmental appellate authority scaled down the

punishment from dismissal to one of compulsory retirement which

allowed to keep some of his pensionary benefits. However, the

delinquent was not satisfied, he challenged the punishment. The

Madras High Court re-examined all the evidence from scratch,

cleared the delinquent of all charges and directed State to reinstate

him with full back wages. It is in such factual background that when

the State appeal, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a High Court

should not re-appreciate evidence in Articles 226/227 jurisdiction

and must not act as an appellate authority. In P. Gunasekaran, it

was a case of re-appreciation of evidence and the question was

where the finding of fact that has attained finality can be re-opened

in Article 226 jurisdiction. Therefore, P. Gunasekaran also is

distinguishable on facts qua the case at hand. In this regard, this

Court deems it appropriate to respectfully write that P.

Gunasekaran in law also does not make a departure from the well

settled principle that judicial intervention is permitted when the

inquiry findings are based on no evidence, when it is entirely

perverse and violation of principles of natural justice besides

statutory rules being broken. Therefore, P. Gunasekaran besides

being distinguishable on facts does not come to the aid of the

appellant/FCI as this Court is of the considered view that this is a

Page 34 of 42

case where principles of natural justice have been violated (Caesar

to Caesar appeal) the findings are entirely perverse (as what is

clearly permissible has been framed as a charge and the delinquent

has been found guilty) and this is not a case where this Court is re-

appreciating evidence.

As regards Hanumantha Rao, on facts, it was a case

where the delinquent was employed by the bank as a Supervisor of

five Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies (PACS) cooperative

societies and while serving as Supervisor, significant financial fraud

and cheating had taken place resulting in massive misappropriation

of society funds for which disciplinary action was initiated. The

disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and dismissed the

delinquent from service. The departmental appeal was rejected and

so was the writ petition by a Single Bench of the Andhra Pradesh

High Court. However, when an intra Court appeal was preferred to

a Division Bench, Hon’ble Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High

Court drastically entered the penalty substituting dismissing with a

minor punishment of stoppage of 2 (two) increments for 3 (three)

years. It is in this context that alteration of penalty by the Division

Bench of High Court was held to be impermissible. Therefore, K.

Hanumantha Rao is clearly distinguishable on facts and it does

not come to the aid of appellant/FCI. In any event, K.

Page 35 of 42

Hanumantha Rao also does not make any departure from well

settled principles in which a writ Court can interfere.

As regards in N. Gangaraj on facts, the delinquent

was serving as a Police Inspector and was accused of demanding

and accepting illegal gratification in exchange for not including a

vehicle in a pending case. The departmental proceedings ended in

a dismissal order and the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal set

aside the dismissal order. State filed an appeal against the order of

Administrative Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court upheld the

order of the Tribunal. It is in this factual background that the

question as to whether punishment order being made by a

disciplinary authority can be interfered with was examined and it

was held that judicial review is qua decision making process. In the

case at hand, the decision making process has been found to be

fraud besides being a case of violation of principles of natural

justice, a case of no evidence and the case of perversity. Therefore,

in Gangaraj also it does not come to the aid of the appellant/FCI

as it is distinguishable on facts and it is not an exception to settled

grounds of intervention i.e., natural justice, perversity and no

evidence.

In Dalbir Singh, on facts, the delinquent was a

General Duty Constable in CRPF (Central Reserved Police Force)

Page 36 of 42

and an FIR was lodged against him for murder/attempted murder

resulting in conviction and life imprisonment. It is in this factual

ground that it was held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction

by reappreciating oral evidence and overturning the findings of a

domestic inquiry. The case at hand is certainly not one of

murder/attempted murder much less one resulting in conviction

and life imprisonment. Dalbir Singh is completely different on

facts and therefore, it does not come to the aid of appellant/FCI.

As regards Umesh, on facts, the delinquent was a

Village Accountant in Karnataka, he was accused of demanding and

accepting a bribe for making charges in revenue records.

Thereafter, a trap was laid leading to departmental inquiry resulting

in compulsory retirement. When this punishment was set aside, it

was held that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically

absolve an employee in departmental proceedings. Therefore, this

Court has no hesitation in respectfully writing that Umesh is also

clearly distinguishable on facts and principle does not come to the

aid of appellant/FCI in the case at hand and the principle regarding

a delinquent not being absolved on being acquitted in criminal

proceedings does not come to the aid of appellant/FCI.

Page 37 of 42

This takes this Court to 4 the (four) case laws pressed

into service by the respondent. The 4 (four) case laws pressed into

service by respondent are as follows:

(i) State of Kerala & Ors. -vs- M. Padmanabhan Nair

[(1985) 1 SCC 429];

(ii) Dr. Uma Agrawal -vs- State of U.P. & Anr. [(1993) 3

SCC 438];

(iii) Bhagirathi Jena -vs- Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. &

Ors. [(1999) 3 SCC 666] and

(iv) State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. -vs- Dhirendra Pal

Singh [(2017) 1 SCC 49].

M. Padmanabhan Nair, on facts, is a case of a

retired Government servant whose pension and gratuity were paid

after a delay of more than 2 (two) years. The employee filed the

suit claiming interest owing to delay in payment of his retiral

benefits. The Courts in the State granted interest and State carried

the decree to Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this scenario, Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that pension and gratuity are not a bounty or

ex-gratia payment as they are valuable rights and property of an

employee. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that administrative delays

such as obtaining Last Pay Certificate or No Liability Certificate

cannot ordinarily justify withholding retiral benefits. It was held that

State can be made liable to pay interest with compensation for

delay payment of pension and gratuity. M. Padmanabhan Nair is

Page 38 of 42

no doubt in a different facts setting but there can be no two views

about the well settled principle that pension is not a bounty.

However, this is not the case where interest for delayed payment,

delayed owing to administrative delay has been claimed as already

alluded to supra, in this case, both sides agree that if the

disciplinary proceedings, punishment and departmental appeal are

dislodged the claims of the respondent qua retiral benefits will

follow as an inevitable consequence. This Court is interfering with

the punishment/departmental appeal and the retiral benefits

followed. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the

legal grind on M. Padmanabhan Nair is really not necessary.

As regards Uma Agrawal on facts, it was a case of

Medical Officer whose pension, gratuity, provident fund and other

retiral benefits were not released for several years post retirement,

owing to which the retired medical officer approached Hon’ble

Supreme Court by invoking Article 32. In this context, Hon’ble

Supreme Court reiterated the principle that pension and retiral

benefits are not bounties and that the State has duty to ensure

timely payment of pensionary benefits and the same cannot be

delayed on administrative grounds. On the same reasoning set out

supra, as regards M. Padmanabhan Nair’s case, this Court

Page 39 of 42

respectfully writes that the legal grind on Dr. Uma Agrawal

principle also is not really necessary in the legal drill at hand.

As regards Bhagirathi Jena, on facts, it was a case

of an employee of State Financial Corporation being chargesheeted

in respect of misconduct subjected to departmental proceedings

which were not completed before retirement but were continued

post retirement and retiral benefits were withheld. It is in this

factual matrix that Hon’ble Supreme Court held that retiral benefits

cannot be withheld or reduced on the basis of pending

departmental inquiry unless there is a specific enabling provision in

service rules. This Court again deems it appropriate to write that

while respectfully following Bhagirathi Jena principle further legal

grind on the same is not necessary owing to the reason set out

supra as regards M. Padmanabhan Nair and Dr. Uma Agrawal

cases.

As regards the last case law viz., Dhirendra Pal

Singh, on facts, the delinquent was an Assistant Store

Superintendent in the Irrigation Department of the Government of

Uttar Pradesh and post retirement though leave encashment and

part of his gratuity and pension were released, remaining gratuity

with pension were withheld citing alleged stock discrepancies and

contemplated recovery but no departmental or judicial proceedings

Page 40 of 42

had been instituted before his retirement. It is in this context that

Hon’ble Supreme Court on finding that validly instituted

departmental proceedings were not pending and therefore, the

action of the State is unsustainable. Dhirendra Pal Singh is

clearly distinguishable on facts as in the case at hand, the

departmental proceedings were commenced/initiated while the

respondent was in service. To be noted, in the case at hand, the

DP was initiated on 11.10.2018 when the respondent was in service

as he superannuated only on 30.09.2020. Suffice to write that

Dhirendra Pal Singh is also a distinguishable on facts.

This Court deems it appropriate to write that while

applying the case laws cited by both sides, this Court has

respectfully followed that declaration of law made by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the oft quoted and celebrated Padmasundara

Rao’s case reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533 [Padmasundara

Rao(Dead) & Ors. -vs- State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

As regards Padmasundara Rao, this Court has

chosen to describe the ratio as declaration of law as

Padmasundara Rao was rendered by an Hon’ble Constitution

Bench. On facts, Padmasundara Rao arose under Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act) and the question was after

quashing of land acquisition Notification under Section 6 of the

Page 41 of 42

Central Act whether a fresh period of one year is available to the

State Government to issue another Notification under Section 6.

While dealing with this question/this fact, Hon’ble Constitution

Bench of Supreme Court laid down the manner in which reliance

has to be placed on case laws. In Padmasundara Rao it was

made clear that Courts should not place reliance on case laws

without discussing as to how the facts fit in qua the facts of the

case at hand and went on to declare that one additional or different

fact can make a world of difference. Relevant paragraph of

Padmasundara Rao (as reported in SCC) is paragraph 9 and the

same reads as follows:

‘9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions

without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in

with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is

placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a

speech or judgment as though they are words in a

legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that

judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of

a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington Vs.

British Railways Board reported in (1972) 2 WLR

537. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different

fact may make a world of difference between conclusions

in two cases.’

[19] In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive

reasoning thus far, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the

conclusion that the order of the learned Single Bench allowing both

the WPs of the respondent deserves to be sustained and there is

no ground whatsoever for interfering with the same.

Page 42 of 42

[20] In the result, captioned 2 (two) WAs fail and the same

are dismissed. Consequently, MC(WP(C)) Nos. 34 of 2020 and 35

of 2020 also perish with the WAs and the same are also dismissed.

As a further consequence, MC(WP(C)) No. 53 of 2023 taken out by

the respondent for vacating interim order becomes infructuous in

the light of dismissal of MC (WP(C)) Nos. 34, 35 of 2020 as well as

writ appeals. Therefore, this MC(WP(C)) No. 53 of 2023 is disposed

of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

FR/NFR

Bipin/Sushil

P.S. I : Upload forthwith

P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in

High Court website inter-alia as the same is QR coded.