WP/16266/2001 of B. MANOHAR Vs THE GENERAL MANAGER OF FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD on 30 December 2021

ORDER

This Writ [)etition ]is filed by the [petitioner ][under ][Article ][226 ][ol]the Constitution rf India seeking a Writ more [particularly ][one ][in ][the]nature of Writ o; Mandamus declaring the action of the [l ]'' [respondent]in imposing th : punishment by proceedings No.RMG/VIC/0063dt.12.02.2000 ar illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without [jurisdiction ][and]beyond colnpete tcy and consequently to set asidc [the ][sat.tre ][and ][pass]such f'urtl-rer ord'r or orders as this llon'ble Coutt ua! cleenr llt andproper in the cirr umslances of'the case

2. Brief tactr leading to the filing of this Writ Petitior are that thepetitioner was a1 pointed as Mazdoor in the respondent Cotporation inthe year 1978 a rd was promoted as Grade-l Helper in 1983. At [the]time of filing c f the Writ Petition, the petitioner was working [as]Grade-ll Operat rr. While the petitioner was working as Grade-llOperator, the l [nd ]respondent issued a charge sheet against thepetitioner on 3C 12.1998 alleging that the petitioner had comrnittedirregularities wit r regard to the leave travel concession reimbursernentclaim. The discil [,linary ]authority imposed the tbllowing punishment:

''5. l, accor lingly, order thut the pay ofShri B.Monohur. Operutor.Gr.ll be re,'ucetl by one stnge liom Rs.l994i- to tls.t942/- in ihei)time scale l'pay of Rs.l350-2098 Jbr o period oJ 3 years vithGr.ll be re,'ucetl by one stnge liom Rs.l994i- to tls.t942/- in ihei)time scale l'pay of Rs.l350-2098 Jbr o period oJ 3 years vith )

immedidte effect. I further order that Shri Manohar will earnincrements of pay during the period of reduction and that on theexpiry of this period, the reduction will not have the effect o/postponing his future increments of pay. I also order the following:postponing his future increments of pay. I also order the following:

,that the omount of Rs,4864/- claimed and leceivedtowards .false L7'C claim be recovered.from Shri Manohartogether \)ilh inte re.\'t al Bank'.t le nding rate Jrom the claleofreceipt of above amount to the date of recowry;towards .false L7'C claim be recovered.from Shri Manohartogether \)ilh inte re.\'t al Bank'.t le nding rate Jrom the claleofreceipt of above amount to the date of recowry;

ii)lhdt the amounl of Rs.750/- incurred on account ofvert-ficalbn charges he recoverctl.from him;vert-ficalbn charges he recoverctl.from him; ii,thor Shri Manohar be debarred from availing leave tavelconcession for lhe nexl two sets i.e., one againsl blockyear 2000-200lfor Home town and the other one againstthe block year 2002-2003 for All India. "concession for lhe nexl two sets i.e., one againsl blockyear 2000-200lfor Home town and the other one againstthe block year 2002-2003 for All India. "

Thereafter the appellate authority under rules issued a Memorandumdt.l8.l0. 1999 seeking explanation of the petitioner as to why his caseshould not be reviewed and the penalty should not be enhanced. Thepetitioner submitted his explanation that he has not preferred anyappeal against the order d1.10.05.1999. The said order became finaland it was not open to the appellate authority to reconsider thedecision taken by the disciplinary authority under Clause 41142 of theCertified Standing Orders of the Company. However, the lurespondent passed an order dt. 12.02.2000 by observing as under:

"Now, therefore, the undersigned a/ter taking into consideration ofthe whole record of the case, impose the penalty of reduction by onestage from Rs.l994/- to Rs.1942/- p.m. in the time scale of pay ofRs.l350-2098for a period of three years, w.e.f. 10.5.99 wrth furtherdirection that he will not earn increment of pay during the period ofreduction and that on the expiry of this period, the reduction will not /

have the effe:t of [postponing ]future [increments ][of ][pay ][on ][Sri],\,lunohar Against this ordt r of enhancement [of ][the punishment, ][the ][petitioner]has filed this Wr' Petition.

3. Ms. K. ))hargavi, leamed [counsel ][representing ][Smt' ][K']Udayasri, leam, [,d ][counsel ]for [the ][petitioner submits ][that ][the]respondent Corp tration [is ][having ][its own Certified ][Standing ][Orders]and by Ctause f5 thereof [the ][appellate ][authoritv ][has ][no ][power ][to]review the ordet; of the [disciplinary authority ][and ][Clause ][46 ][confers]such power on [t ]te reviewing [authority. ][She ][submitted ][that ][it ][is ][only]the reviewing t uthority which [can ][pass ][orders under ][Clause ][46,]whereas in the rresent case, it is [the ][appellate ][authority ][which ][has]passed the impr Lgned order and therefore, [this ][order ][has ][to ][be ][set]aside. She also [placed ]a [copy ][ofthe ][Standing Orders ][ofthe ][respondent]Corporation in 1 elangana before [this ][Court.]

4, Earlier Sr C.V. Mohan Reddy, [learned counsel ][was ][appearing]for Fertilizer Ccrporation of [India ][Limited. ][However, ][on ][07.02.2020']as it was ment oned that Sri C.V. [Mohan Reddy ][is ][no ][longer ][the]Standing Couns:l for the Corporation, [his ][name ][was ][directed ][to ][be]deleted and the rame ol the respondent [Corporation ][was ][directed ][to ][be]printed and the natter was posted to 03.12.2021. On [03 ][12.2021, ][none]appeared for tl e respondenls and it [was ][directed ][to ][be ][listed ][on]", [10.12.2021 ][ant ][again ][on ][that ][date ][also, none appeared'for ][the]respondent Cor roration though its name [was ][printed in ][the ][cause ][list.]

The respondents have filed counter affidavit and therefore thecontentions in the said counter affidavit are taken into considerationfor disposal of the Writ Petition.

5. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the reviewing authority,i.e., CMD of the respondent Corporation is reviewing the disciplinarycases initiated against the officers covered under FCI (CDA) Rules,1972 and the workmen covered under the Certified Standing Ordersfound that the penalties imposed in respect of delinquent officialswere not commensurate with the gravity of tlie misconduct andtherefore has ordered review of the cases and therefore upon thoroughexamination of the case, the appellate authority issued orderNo.RMG/ViG/80/63 dt.12.02.2000 imposing the penalty of reductionby one stage from Rs.l994l- to Rs.1942l- [per ]ntonth [in ]the [time ][scale]ofRs. 1350-2098/- for a period of3 [years ][with ]effect [from ][10.05.1999]with further directions that he rvill not eam increments of pay duringthe period of reduction and that on the expiry of the above [period, ][the]reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future [increments]of pay of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the [respondents, ][the]order passed by the appellate authority [was ]in accordance [with ][the]rules and regulations of the Corporation.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions [and ][the ][materiai ][on]record. this Court tlnds that Clause 46 of the Certified [Standing]Orders empowers the authority [higher than the ][appellate ][authority ][to]

review the order r of the [disciplinary authority' Admittediy, ][in ][this]case, the reviewi 19 authority [is ][the ][CMD ][and ][he cannot ][delegate his]powers of reviev to the appellate authority. If [at ][all, ][the ][reviewing]officer himself ras the [power ]to [impose/reduce ][or ][enhance ][the]penalty, but he < annot delegate such a power to the [off-rcer ][lower ][in]rank who is alsc the appellate authority to the [petitioner' ][Therefore,]the order of enha rcing the punishment is set aside.

7. The Writ I etition is accordingly allowed. No [costs.]

8. Pending rriscellaneous petitions. if an1', in this [\\/rit ][Petition]

shall stand close l.

SD/. V.KAVITHAASSIS'TANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//SiEC'TION OFFICER

To,1. The Dy. General /lanager, Fertilizer [Corporation Of lndia Ltd, Ramagundam]Unit, Karimnagar )ist [.]2. One CC to Smt. l . Udaya Sri, Advocate IOPUC]3. One CC to Sri C.". Mohan Reddy, [SC ][for ][FCIL ][OPUC]4. Two CD Copies5. One Spare CopySMSW {

HIGH COURT

DATED:3011212021

ORDERWP.No.16266 of 2001

ALLOW!NG THE WPWITHOUT COSTS

ia2c-\"=::.._;,/