Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71714 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 57035 of 2014 Petitioner :- Achhaibar Ram Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- Ishan Shishu,N.P. Singh,Pranjal Mehrotra,S.C.,Satya Prakash Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement dated 26.08.2014 passed by the respondent No. 2. 2. Shri P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the disciplinary enquiry was conducted without adopting the procedure not known to law. 3. Nothing from the pleadings has been shown that the enquiry proceedings were held in any manner which is contrary to the rules or principals of natural justice. 4. On the contrary, a perusal of the enquiry report shows that the recitals in the enquiry report clearly demonstrate that the petitioner had cross-examined the witnesses. Hence, the challenge to the enquiry proceedings for lack of procedural propriety fails. There is no infirmity in the enquiry report. 5. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the issues raised in the reply to the show cause have not be considered. 6. The order passed by the disciplinary authority reflects due consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner. The assertion of the petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice regarding his not signing the summary statement of the 'Special Physical Verification' was duly examined by the disciplinary authority. According to the disciplinary authority the 'Special Physical Verification' was duly signed by the superior officer. The disciplinary authority was not swayed or influenced by the findings of the I.O., that the charged officer had signed the summary statement. The defence of the petitioner that the shortages which were subject matter of the instant enquiry were the same as those who were found in the CBI raid were also duly considered by the disciplinary authority. The CBI raid occurred in the month of July, 2012. However, the charges in the instant enquiry proceedings relate to the shortages detected during the 'Special Physical Verification' in January, 2013. The subject matter of the enquiry in the instant case was different to the cause of the criminal offence which was investigated by the CBI. 7. The defence of the petitioner as regards the recovery of the 10-20 sack bags was also duly considered by the disciplinary authority by finding that the sack bags were maintained only to camouflage to the known shortages. 8. The above findings are well reasoned and based on materials in the record. The said conclusions of the disciplinary authority are not liable to be interfered with. 9. The submissions as regards non consideration of the objection raised by the petitioner that the effect of the admissions made by PW3 and PW5 before the enquiry officer has merit. Similarly, the objection to Article 4 of the charge regarding the admissions made by PW 6 and PW 7 too have not been considered by the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order. 10. In the wake of the preceding discussion the impugned order is liable to be revisited only in respect of non recording of findings regarding the admissions made by PW 3,5,6 and 7 in respect of Article 3 and 4 of the charges. 11. The disciplinary authority has also neglected to make any finding as regards his jurisdiction to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement in view of Regulation 60A of FCI Staff Regulations, 1971. The matter is remitted with the following directions: I. The disciplinary authority shall consider impact of the admissions made by PW 3,5,6 and 7 and in the enquiry proceedings which according to the petitioner are to his benefit and would lead to his exoneration or in any case reduction of penalty. II. The disciplinary authority shall also consider whether the penalty of compulsory retirement can be imposed under the Regulation, 1971. 12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 13. The exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after giving a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall be restrained from raising any fresh ground. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Jaswant Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad