it2025_00335 — Regulations 60 (1) (b) and 58 of Food Corporation of India (Staff-FCI) Regulations, 1971 permits before making a final order to the effect in writing that there was no need to hold regular enquiry. In the present case after issuing a show-cause notice calling for a representation after the preliminary enquiry, the Respondent herein was punished for recovery of a sum of rupees five lakhs and censure which is not in order

Regulations 60 (1)

(b) and 58 of Food Corporation of India (Staff-FCI) Regulations, 1971 permits before making a final order to the effect in writing that there was no need to hold regular enquiry. In the present case after issuing a show-cause notice calling for a representation after the preliminary enquiry, the Respondent herein was punished for recovery of a sum of rupees five lakhs and censure which is not in order — The given chunk is about a legal case involving the Respondent, who was a District Manager in the Food Corporation of India, accused under Regulation 60 of FCI (Staff) Regulations for financial loss ... — Facts: The Respondent while holding the post of District Manager, Food Corporation of India, was proceeded against under Regulation 60 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (Regulations for short) for financial loss while working at North Lakhimpur Region in Assam. After preliminary enquiry, a show cause-notice was issued and eventually the punishment for recovery of rupees five lakhs and censure was passed against the Respondent, herein. The Respondent filed a W.P. No. 16812 (W) of 2006 in the High Court. A single member of the High Court after hearing held that the Disciplinary Authority, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director had not formed an opinion either to hold a regular inquiry or not as contemplated under Regulation 58 for imposing the major penalty and accordingly quashed the order of punishment as well as the show-cause notice. Food Corporation of India filed an appeal and the Division Bench relying on the case of Food Corporation of India v. A. Prahlada Rao [ 2001 (1) SCC 165 ] concurred with the view expressed by Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. Against that dismissal order, this SLP is filed before the Apex Court. The Apex Court heard both sides and felt that the controversy centres around interpretation of Regulation 60 and hence reproduced the Regulation 60. Procedure for imposing minor penalties. As per this Regulation, no order imposing on an employee penalties specified in Clauses

(i) to

(iv) of Regulation 54 shall be made with exception to that procedure. The exceptions are meant to follow principles of natural justice. The Item (2) of the procedure also indicates where the enquiry is to be done. In the case of A. Prahlada Rao (supra), the operative portion 5 is reproduced. As per that Para, it is said that "if the discretion given under Regulation 60 (1)

(b) is misused or is exercised in an arbitrary manner, it is open to the employee to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. It is for the Disciplinary Authority to decide whether regular departmental enquiry as contemplated under Regulation 58 for imposing a major penalty should be followed or not. This discretion cannot be curtailed by interpretation which is contrary to the language used. Regulation 60 (2) itself provides that in case if it is proposed to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of retirement benefits payable to an employee and in such other cases as mentioned therein, the Disciplinary Authority shall hold inquiry in the manner laid down in Regulation 58 before making any order imposing any such penalty". After hearing both sides, the Apex Court held: