Food Corporation Of India v. Bant Singh And Another, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent, an employee of the Food Corporation of India (FCI), was served with a charge-sheet dated 1 June 1996. During the ensuing departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, on 20 November 1996, refused the respondent’s request to engage Shri Kamal Kumar, a retired FCI employee, as his defence assistant. Citing Regulation 58(8) of the FCI Staff Regulations, the Enquiry Officer directed the respondent to defend himself either personally or through a serving employee of the Corporation, or of the Central or State Government. Instead of participating in the enquiry, the respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No. 18180 of 1996 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. On 19 December 1996, the High Court allowed the writ petition and ordered the Corporation to permit the respondent to take assistance from the retired employee. The Corporation challenged that order before the Supreme Court by special leave.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court interpreted Regulation 58(8), which expressly allows a delinquent employee to take assistance from “any other employee of the Corporation or any State or Central Government employee” but bars representation by a legal practitioner unless specific conditions are met. The Court reasoned that the regulation confines assistance to serving employees; a retired employee does not fall within that category. Allowing a retiree to appear would effectively permit him to “have regular practice,” undermining the regulation’s intent to keep the enquiry an internal, non-legalistic process. Consequently, the High Court erred in directing that a retired employee could act as defence assistant.

The Court, however, took note of an undisputed factual development: following the High Court’s order, the respondent had already availed himself of the retired employee’s assistance, and the enquiry had been concluded. Re-opening the enquiry would serve no practical purpose. In these circumstances, although it found the High Court’s interpretation legally incorrect, the Supreme Court declined to disturb the concluded enquiry.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED. No order as to costs.

While the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s view that a retired employee could be a defence assistant under Regulation 58(8), it permitted the completed enquiry to stand, thereby limiting the decision’s immediate effect to the parties. The ruling clarifies that, prospectively, only serving employees of the Corporation or of the Central or State Government may assist a delinquent employee in FCI disciplinary proceedings; however, it sets no broader precedent beyond that interpretive clarification.

Food Corporation Of India v. Bant Singh And Another

Order

1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 19-12-1996 made in CWP No. 18180 of 1996.

3. The admitted position is that pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 1-6-1996 issued to the respondent, on 20-11-1996, the Enquiry Officer rejected permission to the respondent to engage Shri Kamal Kumar, a retired employee, as a defence assistant in the enquiry. The respondent was asked to appear either in person or through an employee of the Corporation or the Central Government or the State Government employee to defend himself. The respondent did not appear. On the other hand, he filed a writ petition in the High Court contending that he is entitled to the assistance of a retired employee of the Food Corporation of India. The High Court allowed the writ petition with direction to the Corporation to allow the respondent to engage the retired employee as defence assistant. The question is whether the High Court is right in giving the direction. It is true that in an enquiry conducted by the Department, the delinquent is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to defend himself including the assistance of the employee of the Corporation or of the Central Government or the State Government employee. Rule 58(8) of the Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations postulates as under:

“58. (8) The employee may take the assistance of any other employee of the Corporation or any State or Central Government employee to present the case on his behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits.”

4. A reading thereof would clearly indicate that an employee is entitled to an opportunity to defend himself either in person or through an employee of the Corporation or of the Central Government or the State Government employee, in the departmental enquiry conducted against the delinquent. A legal practitioner is prohibited to appear before the disciplinary authority. Under these circumstances, a direction given by the High Court to allow the respondent to take the assistance of a retired employee, though he is not a legal practitioner who is prohibited to appear and assist the delinquent, in reality amounts to permitting the retired employee to have regular practice. The High Court has committed an error in giving such a direction.

5. However, it is stated that pursuant to the direction given by the High Court, the assistance of a retired employee was already given and the enquiry was completed. If that is so, the enquiry need not be reopened. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not want to interfere with the directions given by the High Court.

6. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Civil Appeal No. 4432 of 1997, decided on July 7, 1997

Food Corporation Of India v. Bant Singh And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Food Corporation Of India v. Bant Singh And Another

Comments