SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Sujata V. Manohar and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 688 of 1997. D/d. 5.8.1998.

Food Corporation of India - Appellant

Versus

Padmakumar Bhuvan - Respondent

Departmental enquriy - Non-Supply of documents - Respondent a Quality-Control Inspector, in charge of Godown/Depot of FCI - In departmental enquiry respondent held responsible for shortage in stock of paddy - Penalty of recovery of pecuniary loss - Imposed on respondents - Enquiry challenged on the ground of non-supply of the documents required by him - Most of the 11 documents mentioned in the list of documents required by the respondent found to be letters written by him complaining about the condition of Godown - Respondent contending that the Godown was not fit for storage and that a difference in the percentage of moisture therein accounted for the difference in weight - No such contention taken in written submission - Order of Division Bench set aside - Order of single judge confirmed.

[Para ]

ORDER

Sujata V. Manohar, J. - The respondent was a Quality-Control Inspector, in charge of the Godown/Depot of the appellant at Golpara. The appellant-Food Corporation of India is a statutory corporation dealing with the imports, procurement and storage of foodgrains throughout the country.

2. The respondent was served with a charge-sheet dated 26-9-1979 charging him with failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty inasmuch as at the time of handing over charge of Golpara Depot to Shri T.K. Bora, Inspector, Food Corporation of India on 13-8-1975, the respondent could not account for 77.78 quintals of MS paddy valued at about Rs 6066.84 and 180.98 quintals of SBI paddy valued at Rs 13,573.50.

3. After holding an enquiry, the disciplinary authority, on the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer by its order dated 24-1-1985 imposed on the respondent penalty of recovery of pecuniary loss to the appellant-Corporation from the pay of the respondent by recovering @ Rs 320 p.m. for a period of three years w.e.f. January 1985 as also withholding of three increments w.e.f. January 1986. The appellate authority dismissed the respondent's appeal.

4. The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition before the High Court. His contention was that he had asked for production of certain documents on which he wished to rely. The non-production of these documents by the appellant had vitiated the enquiry. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no prejudice was shown to be caused to the respondent on account of non-production of the documents. In appeal, however, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge as also the findings of the enquiry officer and the order of the disciplinary authority on the ground that reasons were not recorded for non-supply of documents and the prescribed procedure was not complied with. Therefore, the findings of the enquiry officer and the order of the disciplinary authority were required to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the letter dated 4-9-1984 addressed by the District Manager to the Joint Manager, Food Corporation of India in connection with the departmental proceedings against the respondent and pertaining to submission of additional documents. The letter states that after extensive search of the desired documents, they could not be traced out in this office. Since the successor of the respondent was a deputationist from the State Government and had been repatriated from the appellant's Department, it was not possible to find out the relevant documents from his custody. Therefore, the documents should be treated as not available. The reason, therefore, for non-supply of the documents asked for by the respondent was that the documents could not be found by the appellant after searching their office. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has also recorded that there was no averment made by the respondent of any prejudice caused to him as a result of these documents not being available to him. Nor any finding has been given that any prejudice was caused to him thereby.

6. We have been shown the list of documents which the respondent had asked for by his letter dated 21-8-1981. It is a list of 11 documents and most of the documents appear to be letters written by the respondent complaining about the condition of the Godown in which the paddy in question had been stored. It was his contention that the Godown was not fit for storage and that a difference in the percentage of moisture as a result of storage in the Godown accounted for the difference in weight. The respondent had led evidence before the enquiry officer in this connection and had participated in the enquiry. No prejudice is shown as caused to the respondent. In the written submissions of the respondent also, no such contention appears to have been taken. In these circumstances, when the enquiry officer has submitted his report on the basis of the evidence led by both sides, this was not a fit case for interference by the High Court in appeal. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Division Bench and confirm the judgment and order of the Single Judge of the High Court.

Appeal allowed.