Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010074262023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2193/2023 ANKIT KUMAR S/O SRI GOPAL SHARA LAO-KHOWA ROAD, HAIBORGAON, P.O. P.S. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782002 VERSUS MANAGING DIRECTOR, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (FCI) AND ANR 16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FCI N. E. ZONE ULUBARI GLP BUILDING G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI-78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. G K GUPTA, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, F C I, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER 19.03.2025 Heard Mr. G. K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. V. K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, FCI appearing for the respondents. 2. The writ petitioner herein is presently posted as Manager in the FCI Page No.# 2/5 Godown at the Food Storage Depot at Bhalukpong. On 23.11.2016 a Charge Memo No.FCI/RO/ITA/Vig./Shortage/BHPN/2016/349 was served upon the writ petitionerwhereby, as many as four charges were brought against him. The writ petitioner had submitted his written statement of defence denying all the charges. However, not being satisfied with his reply, an enquiry was conducted into the charges brought against the petitioner. It appears that departmental proceeding was initiated against another FCI employee viz., Ranjit Kumar Bora more or less on similar charges. At the conclusion of the enquiry, the writ petitioner herein was exonerated in respect of the charges Nos.I, II, II and IV brought against him. However, the Disciplinary Authority had disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the report dated 15.05.2017 and after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause as to why the Disciplinary Authority should not differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and a different view should not be adopted in respect of the charges under Articles I and IV, it was held that the said charges were proved against the petitioner. Consequently, the penalty of “reduction of two (02) stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two (02) year, he will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay” was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 02.08.2018. Aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 02.08.2018, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Executive Director, FCI, N.E. Zone, which was rejected by the order dated 03.12.2021. 3. According to the writ petitioner, thereafter, he had preferred a review petition submitted through proper channel before the Chairman-cum- Page No.# 3/5 Managing Director, FCI on 15.03.2022 seeking exoneration from the charges brought against him. Notwithstanding the same, no action has been taken on his review petition. Situated thus, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. Opening his arguments, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Enquiry Officer had correctly appreciated the evidence available on record to arrive at a finding that none of the charges had been proved against the petitioner. However, reversing such finding with regard to Articles-I and IV, the Disciplinary Authority has arrived at an erroneous finding of fact by ignoring the relevant materials available on record including the fact that at the time of handing over and taking over charge of the Godown, the previous Manager did not raise any objection pertaining to shortage of any storage. From the tenor of arguments of Mr. Guprta it is apparent that the petitioner is assailing the order of the Disciplinary Authority primarily on the ground that the same has been issued on erroneous consideration of facts and circumstances of the case. If that be so, it is obvious that the departmental authority at the highest level would be best suited to take a call on such plea of the petitioner. It is only after the departmental authority takes a final view in the matter, the writ Court will be in a position to appreciate the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel. 5. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that as per Regulation 74 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, a review would lie before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of FCI against the order of the appellate authority. Although the petitioner has asserted that he had submitted a review petition on 15.03.2022, yet, the respondents have brought Page No.# 4/5 cogent materials on record, through counter-affidavit, to submit that no such review petition was received in the office of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of FCI. Mr. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, FCI has fairly submitted that if the petitioner is keen on preferring a review petition, the same can be considered even at this stage if a copy of the review petition dated 15.03.2022 is sent to the office of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of FCI. 6. If that be so, this Court sees no valid reason as to why the matter should not be remanded to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of FCI to take a decision on the factual aspects of the matter raised by the petitioner assailing the order of penalty. The learned Standing Counsel, FCI has also agreed to such a recourse. Moreover, since an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of review is available to the writ petitioner, he must exhaust such alternative remedy before the matter can be considered by the Writ Court. 7. The petitioner’s counsel Mr. Gupta has submitted that if the matter is remanded to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of FCI, this Court may issue a direction to dispose of the review petition in a time bound manner. 8. By taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides, this writ petition is, thereafter, being disposed of by providing that within three weeks from today, the writ petitioner would submit a copy of his review petition filed on 15.03.2022 along with a certified copy of this order in the office of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of FCI, New Delhi either by hand or by registered post with A/D. If such a review petition is filed by the petitioner within thee weeks, the same be considered on merit and disposed of by a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 90 days from the date of receipt of the same. If the petitioner continues to remain aggrieved Page No.# 5/5 in the matter even thereafter, it will be open for him to approach this Court by filing a fresh writ petition. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant