Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DAILYLAW 1729 (DEL)

R. S. SHARMA v. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

2001-09-28

A K Sikri

body2001
A. K. SIKRI ( 1 ) ALL these writ petitions raise common question of facts and law. They are accordingly heard together and are disposed of by this single order. In all these cases the petitioners have challenged the impugned orders by which the petitioners have been placed under suspension and at the same time their headquarters are changed. For example, in the case of petitioner in CW No. 7464/99, impugned order is dated 26th/ 27/11/1999 whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension with immediate effect and his headquarter is shifted from Punjab region to Regional FCI, Jaipur (Rajasthan ). Similar orders, are passed in other three cases. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed these orders only on the ground that the petitioners Could not have been suspended and their headquarters changed to some other place, at the same time. In other words, the contention was there could not have been a suspension-cum-transfer order and further that no transfer was permissible after suspension. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order with reference to Regulations of the respondent Corporation, namely, food Corporation of India Staff Regulations which are statutory Regulations framed under the Food Corporation of India Act. Relevant Regulations are Regulations 17, 66, 67 and 68 which are extracted below: 17. TRANSFERS and Tours: An employee shall be liable to serve anywhere in India in the service of the Corporation and to proceed on tour in the course of his official duty to any place within India or abroad. 66. Suspension: (1) The appointing authority or any other authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Board, by general or special order, may place an employee under suspension: (a) Where disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or (b) xxxx 2. xxxx 2 (a)xxxx (b)xxxx 3. xxxx 4. xxxx 5 (a)xxxx (b)xxxx (c)xxxx (6) (An employee under suspension or deemed to have been under suspension shall be entitled to subsistence grant at one half of the pay drawn by the employee concerned immediately on the date preceding the date of his suspension ). xxxx 2 (a)xxxx (b)xxxx 3. xxxx 4. xxxx 5 (a)xxxx (b)xxxx (c)xxxx (6) (An employee under suspension or deemed to have been under suspension shall be entitled to subsistence grant at one half of the pay drawn by the employee concerned immediately on the date preceding the date of his suspension ). He is entitled to draw other compensatory allowances e. g. compensatory (city) allowance, house rent allowance, other than conveyance allowance admissible from time to time, on the basis of pay of which he was in receipt on the date of suspension subject to fulfillment of other conditions laid down for the drawl of such allowances. If the headquarters of an employee under suspension are changed in the public interest by order of a competent authority, he shall be entitled to the allowance as admissible at the new station provided he furnishes the requisite certificates, if any, with reference to such station. 67. Appeals: Orders against which no appeal lies i. xxxx ii. any order of an interlocutory nature or of the nature of a step in aid of the final disposal of a disciplinary proceeding, other than an order of suspension iii. xxxx 68. Orders against which appeal lie Subject to the provisions of Regulation 67. an employee of the Corporation may prefer an appeal against all or any of the following orders, namely i. an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Regulation 66 ii. xxxx iii. xxxx iv. an order which a)xxxx b) interprets to his disadvantage the provisions of any such regulation or agreement. " ( 2 ) REGULATION 17 shows that there is an All India transfer liability of an employee. Regulation 66 empowers the appointing authority to place any employee under suspension where disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending. To this extent there is no dispute. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the headquarters of the petitioners should not have been changed while placing them under suspension. This is squarely answered by Sub-Regulation 6 of Regulation 66 reproduced above which clearly contemplates that the headquarters of an employee under suspension can be changed in public interest. Vires of these Regulations have not been challenged by the petitioners, and therefore, the petitioners are bound by these Regulations. This is squarely answered by Sub-Regulation 6 of Regulation 66 reproduced above which clearly contemplates that the headquarters of an employee under suspension can be changed in public interest. Vires of these Regulations have not been challenged by the petitioners, and therefore, the petitioners are bound by these Regulations. The following averments made in the counter affidavit would further show that the transfers of the headquarters were in public interest: "the averments made in para 5 of the writ petition are denied. As submitted hereinabove it is necessary to transfer the petitioners from the place of their earlier posting to prevent any action by them to destroy the evidence available against them and also to remove them from the place of posting where they have exercised influence. This is necessary for a fair and proper investigation of the misconduct which borders on criminality. The transfers in the instant case are not routine transfers and has been ordered on administrative grounds in public interest on account of their non-discharge or assigned duties in accordance with the laid down instructions and acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation causing huge financial loss and also bringing a bad name to the Corporation by accepting and dispatching rice stocks beyond PFA standards for the Public distributing System. In fact a perusal of Appendix II of the FCI Staff Regulations 1971 clearly show that the Zonal Manager is the disciplinary authority of Category II officials which includes the post of Assistant Manager and therefore the present transfer within the Zone to another region is in accordance with the Regulations applicable to the petitioners. " ( 3 ) MOREOVER, the petitioners have alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal provided by regulations 67 and 68. ( 4 ) I, therefore, do not find merit In these writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed.