NAHAR SINGHversusFOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.

                          [2008] 5 S.C.R. 727


                            NAHAR SINGH                                A
                                   v.
            . FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.
                (Review Petition (C) No. 285 of 2007
                                  IN
                   Civil Appeal No. 2273 of 2008)                      B
                                                     ,•
                                                ''
                          MARCH 31, 2008         '
           (S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.)

          Service Law:
                                                                       c
           Disciplinary proceedings - Misconduct - Penalty of
     compulsory retirement- Delinquent being an Assistant Grades
     Clerk in a wheat godown of FCI - Shortage of stock detected -
     HELD: Report of Inquiry Officer that delinquent was
     responsible for shortage, cannot be said to be perverse or        o
     unreasonable - All the authorities having affirmed the finding,
 !   High Court rightly refused to interfere with the same - No case
     made out to take a different view - Constitution of India, 1950
     - Articles 136 and 226.
           The appellant was an Assistant Grades Clerk in one E
     of the godowns of the respondent-Food Corporation of
     India. On a checking of the said godown, inter alia, 295
     bags of wheat were found short. Disciplinary proceedings
     were initiated, besides the In-charge of the godown,
     against the appellant and two others. The inquiry officer F
     found the appellant guilty of the charges. The disciplinary
     authority imposed upon him the penalty of compulsory
     retirement. The departmental appeal, the review
     application and the writ petition of the appellant having
     been dismissed, he filed an appeal by special leave, which
     was dismissed for non-prosecution. However, the review G
     petition filed by the appellant was entertained and the
     appeal was heard on merits.
-)
          It was contended for the appellant that in the
                                  727                                  H
    728       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A departmental proceedings only the In-charge of the
  godown was found responsible for the shortage; and the
  appellant was proceeded against only on surmises and
  conjectures and, therefore, the order passed by the
  disciplinary authority without application of mind was
B liable to be set aside.
          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
        HELD: It is not correct to say that the appellant had
  nothing to do with the shortages of wheat. It was
c concluded by the inquiry officer that the appellant was
  also responsible for shortages of 295 bags of wheat. His
  conduct during the raid, as also the manner in which the
  shortages had occurred, clearly go to show that without
  his active support, the In-charge alone could not have
  caused the said misconduct. The report of the enquiry
D
  officer cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable.
  Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority has
  been affirmed by the appellate authority. A review petition
  filed by the appellant has also been dismissed by the
  appropriate authority. The High Court also has rightly
E refused to interfere in the matter. Keeping in view the
  materials on record, no case has been made out to differ
  with the said findings. [para 13-15] [732-G-H; 733-A-C]
      .CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition
F No. 285 of 2007
                          IN
          Civil Appeal No. 2273 of 2008.
          P.N. Mishra, S.P. Sharma for the Appellant.
G
          Ajit Pudussery for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                      i -
          S.S. SINHA, J. 1 Order dated 12.2.2007 is recalled.

H         2. Leave granted.
     NAHAR SINGH v. FOOD CORPORATION OF !NOIA &                 729
                 ORS. [S.S. SINHA, J]

~         3. Appellant was an Assistant Grade-Ill (AG-Ill) in one of A
     the Food Storage Depots of Food Corporation of India. 295
     bags of wheat and 195 bags BTS Class gunny bags were found
     missing when special physical verification was conducted by
     the physical verification squad during the period 7 .1.1980 and
     22.1.1980.                                                      B
           4. One Shoop Singh was the unit in-charge of the godown.
     Appellant, Rattan Singh and one Kunwar Singh were working
     thereat as the Assistant Grades Clerk.· Shortages. in the said
     depots were suspected. The godowns were sealed. Physical
     verifications were made by Physical Verification Squad (PVS).     c
     Stock checking exercises were carried out in the said godown
     during the period 7.1.1980 to 22.1.1980. 295 bags of wheat
     and 195 bags of gunnies in Unit No.1 of which Bhoop Singh
     was the in-charge, were found short.
                                                                       D
           The contents of the vigilance report were verified by one
     Shri Panchhi. Apart from Shoop Singh, Nahar Singh and Kunwar
)
     Singh were posted there. Shortages and excesses were found
     in 12 stacks of wheat. The total shortages were found to be 295
     bags ofwheat and the excess amounted to 11 bags only.
     Whereas shortages were found on the top layers of the stacks      E
     which were not visible from the ground, except Stack No.4/16
     and 1/11, which were from partly used stacks.

          5. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
     aforementioned Bhoop Singh and others.                            F
           The imputation of charges drawn against the appellant were
     on the basis of the report of the said inspection carried out by
     the vigilance department as also the one submitted by Shri l.d.
     Nautial, Assistant Manager (Vigilance) containing compilation
     of the statements made by the entire staff of the Food Storage G
     Depot, Sahibabad. Appellant was found guilty of the charges
     on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer which was
     submitted before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary
~)
     authority, by an order dated 18.4.1986 imposed the penalty of
     compulsory retirement from services of the Corporation. A H
    730      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A departmental appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by
  the Appellate Authority in September 1986. A review application·
  filed thereagaisnt was also dismissed on 22.11.1987.
       6. Appellant thereafter filed a writ petition before the High
  Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
B which by reason of the impugned .i'.ldgment dated 17.5.2005
  has been dismissed.
        7. Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
  of the appellant, would contend that from a perusal of the enquiry
c report, it would be evident that the appellant had been held
  responsible for the shortages only on the ground that he had not
  informed thereabout to the appropriate authority and in that view
  of the matter the impugned judgment is wholly unsustainable.
  The learned counsel would urge that all the officers concerned
  have found only Shoop Singh responsible for the shortages and
D
  the appellant had been proceeded against in only on surmises
  and conjunctures. It was urged that the disciplinary authority had
  passed the impugned order without any application -of mind and,
  thus, the same is liable to be set aside.

E        8. We may notice that the special leave petition filed by
    Shoop Singh has been dismissed summarily by an order dated
    12.2.2007.
        9. The SLP preferred by the appellant was also listed on
  the same day but as nobody had appeared, the said special
F SLP was dismissed for default. Appellant filed an application
  for review alleging that he, as also his lawyer, was misled in
  view of the fact that the matter was shown to be listed on
  19.2.2007 as per COURTNIC enquiry. We had called for a report
  from the Registry of the Supreme Court and it appears that the
G contention of the appellant was not correct. It furthermore
  appears that the parties had been given notice with regard to
  the date of listing of the matter.
         10. We have, however, entertained the review application      ~   -
    and heard the appellant on merits.
H
         NAHAR SINGH v. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA &                      731
                     ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

              11. It may be true that Shoop Singh was in-charge of the A
         godown but the manner in which the shortages have occurred
         categorically goes to show that it could not have been possible
         without the active support and/or connivance of the appellant
         and other staff. Whereas in the report of Shri l.D. Nautial, full
         responsibility for shortage of 195 gunnies was placed on Shoop B
         Singh, as regards shortages of 295 bags of wheat, it was
         stated:
              "Keeping in view the general observation and various
              statements, the involvement of Unit In charge, AM (Depot)
              besides some Unit No.1 Staff and watchman may not be              c
~
              ruled out."
              12. Before the enquiry officer, the report of Shri Panchhi
         was proved. He was examined as a witness on behalf of the
         department.
                                                                                D
              In his report, inter alia, it was held by the enquiry officer :
    )
              "(C) Shri Nahar Singh is also one of the officials who did
                   not want the P.V. to be done by 'breaking of stacks'
                   and had objected to it. This is the statement of Shri
                   H.S. Panchhi during cross examination by Shri Suraj          E
                   Bhan, AM(D) and Shri Shoop singh Unit In-charge.
              (D) Theway shortage have been noticed ruled out theft
                   because shortages/excess were detected by the P.V.
                   team in 12 different. stacks in 4 different Chambers F
                   (and top layers were so rearranged that on periphery
                   no shortages were visible until some one went to the
                   top of the stack). The thieves would not operate in
                 · such a way nor it is possible for Unit In-charge alone
                   to create shortgages in 12 different stacks in 4
                                                                          G
                   different chambers all alone without the knowledge
                   and active involvement of his unit staff.
              (E)   The Joint representation by the Unit In-charge and
    -)
                    his staff including the C.O. that keys of the godown
                    was kept in the table drawers of the AM(D) is another H
    732         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 5 S.C.R


A               proof of their connivance. This plea is not convincing
                and has been apparently made to absolve
                themselves from the status of custodian and the
                responsibility for the shortages in stacks. The joint
                representation dated 22.1.1980 is one of the
B               Annexure of Exb.P-3 and P.W. has been cross
                examined in the last para of the proceedings at page
                4. The reasons why the 'key-theory' does not hold
                ground are as under :

          (1)to(3) ...... .
c
          (4)   Also, it is interesting that such a letter should have
                been drafted on 22.1.1980, that is, the day when the
                PV was concluded. This statement by Shri Bhoop
                Singh, AG-I (D) is nothing but an after thought in
                connivance with his staff to involve Shri Suraj Bhan,
D
                AM(D). To my mind after Shri Bhoop Singh and
                company had come to realize that being the
                custodian as well as operating staff they will be held
                responsible for such huge losses to the Corporation,
                they thought that the responsibility may be shifted on
E               AM (D) if they could jointly allege that all keys of
                FSD, Sahibabad used to be kept in the custody of
                the AM(D). But as already stated above, they have
                failed to influence Shri Panchhi because Shri Panchhi
                has not only denied receipt of this photocopy letter
F               dated 22.1.1980 but he has categorically stated that
                "the keys of the godowns are kept in the custody of
                godown In-charge himself."
        13. It was concluded that the appellant was also responsible
G for shortages of 295 bags of wheat. It is, therefore, not correct
  to contend that the appellant had nothing to do with the shortages
  of wheat. His conduct during the raid, as also the manner in
  which the shortages have occurred, clearly go to show that
  without his active support, Bhoop singh alone could not have           ~ -
  caused the said misconduct.
H
        NAHAR SINGH v. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA &                 733
                    ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

             14. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the report of the A
       enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable.
       Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority has been
       affirmed by the appellate authority. A review petition filed by the
       appellant has also been dismissed by the appropriate authority..
       The High Court also, by reason of the impugned judgment, has B
       also rightly refused to interfere in th.e matter.
             15. We, keeping in view the materials placed before us,
       are of the opinion that no cause has been made out to differ
       with the said findings.
                     '
             16. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed but with no order
                                                                         c
       as to costs.
       R.P.                                       Appeal dismissed.




- ·'