APHC010010302005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 14491 of 2005 Bench Sr.No:-5 [3506] Syed Ismail, & 9 Others and Others ...Petitioner(s) Vs. The Food Corporation Of India 8 Others and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: K UDAYA SRI Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): CHINTALAPUDI LAKSHMI KUMARI, O UDAYA KUMAR, B ANJANEYULU CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 9th February 2026 The Court made the following order: Present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…..to issue an order, direction or Writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ (i) declaring the proceedings of District Manager in No.V & S4(9)/2003 dated 05.08.2003 including the consequential proceedings No.V & S4(9)/2003-Eluru dated 07.06.2004 as illegal and arbitrary; (ii) declaring the Proceedings of the Sr. Regional Manager and the Appellate Authority in No.Vig 5(12)/2005-A.P. dated 10.11.2004 is illegal and arbitrary; 2 (iii) declaring proceedings No.Vig 5/2005-A.P. dated 10.05.2005 in so far as not allowing Review Petition in to as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to make any recovery from the salaries of the petitioners duly directing for refund of the amounts recovered from the petitioners and pass other order or orders in the interest of justice.” 2. This writ petition is preferred by ten petitioners. However, perusal of the prayer mentioned supra challenges only one set of orders passed in favour of one of the petitioners. Firstly, all petitioners could not have preferred a joint writ petition, as the cause of action and the proceedings issued against each petitioner were quite different and distinct. Even otherwise, the prayer does not specifically lay challenge to the respective orders passed in the case of each and every petitioner. Be that as it may, this Court is proceeding to consider the matter on merits. 3. (a) Petitioners are claimed to have worked as Assistant Grade-I and Assistant Grade-II Officers with the respondents, Food Corporation of India, at the relevant point of time. They were discharging duties at the storage depot, Eluru, under the administrative control of the District Manager, Tadepalligudem. Petitioners were in charge and responsible for the stocks stored at various depots belonging to the respondent corporation, under their jurisdiction. 3 (b) Initially, the District Manager, Tadepalligudem, is stated to have issued a show cause notice dated 23.04.2003, calling upon petitioners to submit their explanations on the allegations of abnormal storage loss, as noticed in the food storage depot at Eluru during the period July 1998 to October 1998. Petitioners stated to have submitted their explanations on 13.05.2003 denying the allegations. However, petitioners were served with a charge memo dated 05.08.2003 purported to be under Regulation 60 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971. (c) The main charge levelled against all the petitioners was that they were responsible for abnormal storage losses either on account of lack of proper supervision or negligence in maintaining the stocks. Petitioners have submitted explanations refuting the charges. Eventually, the District Manager, Tadepalligudem, passed orders dated 07.06.2004 concluding the inquiry and has imposed penalty of recovery of the amount to be paid in 36 monthly installments. A common order stated to have been passed setting out reasons for arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. The total amount of loss assessed at Rs.35,11,515/- stated to have been apportioned among 15 employees who were responsible for maintaining the stocks, which included petitioners 4 as well. Subsequently, petitioners challenged the said orders in W.P.No.10470 of 2004. Initially, though an interim order was granted, later the writ petition came to be disposed of by relegating the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal, and the appellate authority was directed to consider and dispose of the same within two months. Until such time, the respondents were directed not to recover the monthly installments from the petitioners. (d) Petitioners preferred individual appeals before the appellate authority, and the same came to be disposed of by orders dated 10.11.2004. The appellate authority modified the order of the original authority by restricting the penalty and recovery of loss only to the extent of shortage of stocks over and above 1.5 percent. The same was yet again challenged by the petitioners in W.P.No.21859 of 2004, which was disposed of by order dated 29.11.2004, directing the petitioners to avail the remedy of review before the Zonal Manager. The Zonal Manager was directed to dispose of the review within three months and until then, not to effect any recovery. Eventually, the reviews preferred by petitioners also came to be disposed of, modifying the penalty and ordering recovery of Rs.25,000/- against each 5 petitioner. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is preferred. (e) The very same order of review dated 10.05.2005 also permitted petitioners to seek further review before the Managing Director within 45 days. However, petitioners once again chose to prefer a writ petition rather than taking recourse to review before the Managing Director. At any rate, since the writ petition was already admitted and the same is of the year 2005, availability of a further review before the Managing Director should not be an impediment for this Court to deal with the merits of the matter. 4. Heard Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri C.V.S.S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the initial order of the primary authority, though partially modified by the appellate authority and further modified by the reviewing authority, does not provide specific reasons for imposing the penalty. Further, the authorities below have not dealt with the explanations offered by petitioners in proper perspective while coming to the conclusion that the loss of stocks 6 was on account of dereliction of their duties. He further contended that even according to the reviewing authority, the loss factor was not solely attributable to the petitioners alone; rather, it was also on account of higher moisture content in the stocks, heavy infestation due to non-treatment of stocks because of labour strike, and that there was no concrete evidence to attribute the role of petitioners strictly being responsible to the losses. In that backdrop, the authorities ought not to have come to the conclusion that the petitioners alone were responsible for the losses and thereby ordered recovery of the losses so suffered. The reasons and findings arrived at by the authorities below, therefore, suffer from perversity. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Food Corporation of India, supported the orders passed by the lower authorities and contended that the respondents have communicated the charge memo, invited explanations from the petitioners and after hearing, a reasoned order came to be passed with specific findings. So also, appellate authority and reviewing authority, after applying their mind, concurring with the views expressed by the primary authority, however, taking a lenient view, reduced the penalty amount; therefore, the same 7 cannot be found fault with. He further contended that though the primary authority attributed the entire loss over and above the permissible limit of 0.05% to the petitioners’ failure in safeguarding the stocks, the appellate authority, taking into consideration various intervening circumstances, allowed permissible loss up to 1.5%, considering it as a special case and fixing liability only to the extent of losses over and above 1.5%. The reviewing authority further has reduced the penalty, which clearly indicates that the authorities below did take into consideration the material evidence on record and have rendered definite findings on the issues. Therefore, under the guise of judicial review, the case of the petitioners cannot be once again reviewed by re-appreciating the material on record. 7. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 8. It is now fairly well settled the scope and ambit of judicial review against disciplinary proceedings. This Court is required to examine and determine whether the inquiry held was by the competent authority, and whether the rules of natural justice were complied with, and whether the findings and conclusions so arrived at were based on some evidence and the authority has 8 power and jurisdiction to reach such finding of fact or conclusion. Unless it is found that the findings so recorded were based on mere conjectures and surmises and not on specific material, the same should not be interfered with. Even if there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the authority, the same has to be sustained. Therefore, the constitutional Courts under Article 226 are required to limit judicial review for correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of the principles of natural justice. In the process of adjudication of the case on merits, reappreciation of evidence on record as appellate authority, was held to be beyond the scope of review. 9. Keeping aforesaid principles in mind, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are required to be tested. The entire argument primarily rests on the contention that the finding of fact rendered by the primary authority, as confirmed by appellate and reviewing authorities, were not based on proper appreciation of the evidence and material on record, and further that no reasonable person could have come to conclusion that the petitioners were responsible for the losses on appreciation of the evidence. 9 10. It is not the case of the petitioners that the authority who passed the order was incompetent to initiate proceedings or there was any procedural irregularity in conducting the disciplinary proceedings leading to violation of the principles of natural justice. The sole charge attributed to the petitioners was that there were abnormal storage losses in the stock maintained at one of the depots during the period July 1998 to October 1998. 11. The charged officers raised the following differences: a. The mode of weighment adopted to ascertain the losses was different from the weighment done at the initial stage of unloading the stock. Therefore, the impropriety in weighment resulted in showing storage losses beyond the permissible limit on account of higher moisture content at the time of unloading the stock, and the longer period of storage resulted in driage, thereby causing variation in stock, not attributable to the petitioners. b. There was a labour strike at the relevant point of time; the stocks were not lifted on time, which cannot be attributed to the petitioners. 10 c. The stock deteriorated on account of not being fumigated, which was not within the scope and ambit of the petitioners. 12. The primary authority, in its order, considered all the aforesaid objections and explanations offered by the petitioners, and came to following conclusions: (i) The stocks unloaded in the depot were in gunny bags measuring 50 kgs. Therefore, on comparison with the stocks of the previous period, the loss so arrived at did exceeded the permissible limit, and adopting a different mode of weighment would not have had any bearing on assessing the loss of stock. The variation in stock far exceeded the permissible limit. (ii) The impact of moisture content on the stocks was assessed by taking comparison with the similar kind of stocks for the previous periods, i.e., July 1997 to March 1988, and also by laboratory tests to evaluate the scope for abnormal losses in raw rice. Ultimately, the percentage of loss was determined to be on the higher side. The third and fourth objections were also came to be rejected by holding that neither the labour strike nor non- 11 fumigation of the stocks had any bearing on the abnormal losses. The primary authority ultimately concluded that the loss of stock resulted in financial loss to the tune of Rs.38,15,515/- and the same was purely on account of negligence of the charged officials, who were performing duties in depot operations. 13. In appeal, the appellate authority, after re-evaluating the entire evidence on record and also considering the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioners, consulting the technical wing, and taking into account various factors which would have a bearing on natural decay and weighment loss, ultimately came to the conclusion that in the peculiar circumstances, the permissible loss should be assessed at 1.5%, and any loss beyond the same would have to be treated as abnormal loss solely attributable to the personnel in charge of the depots who were negligent. Therefore, the order of the primary authority came to be modified by holding that any loss up to 1.5% should be treated to be within the permissible limit and losses over and above the same were liable to be recovered from the charged officers. 14. On further review, the reviewing authority once again considered the matter in detail and came to the specific 12 conclusion that there was some amount of moisture content in the stocks and also heavy infestation due to non-treatment, and there was delay in lifting the stocks on account of labour strike. All these factors were taken into account in determining the percentage of loss. Further, the reviewing authority has held that the specific role and responsibility of the lapse on the part of the petitioners was not clearly pointed out by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, taking a lenient view, the penalty was further reduced to Rs.25,000/- from each petitioner. 15. Though learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the observations made by the reviewing authority, to the effect that there was no concrete evidence to prove the specific role of the petitioners in the lapse alleged, the reviewing authority only made incoherent observations without specifically rendering any reasons or finding on the said aspect. 16. Be that as it may, the reviewing authority ruled out the extent of loss over and above 1.5%, as determined by the appellate authority, considering the abnormal circumstances. These are all factual aspects which would require re-appreciation of evidence to determine whether there was any real loss over 13 and above the permissible limit. The orders referred to above, in the opinion of this Court, specifically provide reasons and record definite findings in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners were responsible and consequently liable to bear the quantified loss. Since it cannot be said that the findings so rendered are based on no evidence and there is some evidence to support the conclusions so arrived at, the question of treating such findings as perverse does not arise. 17 As the scope of judicial intervention is very limited, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record as a court of appeal. I find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the respective authorities below. It is also to be noted that the writ petition merely challenges the proceedings issued in favour of one of the petitioners, and the prayer as couched in the writ petition does not lay a specific challenge to the respective orders passed against all other writ petitioners. In such a scenario, this Court is not required to examine the cases of all other writ petitioners for lack of specific challenge. In the normal course, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed qua the rest of the petitioners. However, as this Court has dealt with the merits of the matter, the charges, the explanations offered by the petitioners, 14 and the findings supported by reasons, which are common in nature, the writ petition in the form as filed by all the petitioners is dismissed in all respects. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 09.02.2026 ANS 15 466 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 14491 of 2005 Date: 09.02.2026 ANS