“No Bribe Recovery, Yet Compulsory Retirement Upheld”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Interfere in FCI Disciplinary Action
Case Name: Om Parkash v. FCI and Others
Date of Judgment: 07 May 2026
Citation: CWP-5029-2026
Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate authority. The Court upheld the compulsory retirement of an FCI employee accused of involvement in a bribery-related misconduct, observing that even in the absence of direct recovery, departmental findings based on evidence and procedural compliance could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
Summary: The petitioner, Om Parkash, was working as Technical Assistant-II with the Food Corporation of India (FCI). A vigilance complaint dated 21.05.2021 alleged that officials, including the petitioner, demanded illegal gratification for facilitating acceptance of rice consignments at Sunam, Punjab. A trap was conducted in which ₹58,000 was allegedly recovered from a private individual and not from the petitioner himself. Following registration of an FIR, the petitioner was suspended and later served with a departmental chargesheet dated 29.09.2021.
The petitioner denied all allegations and contended that all consignments had been processed in accordance with official procedure. It was further argued that none of the prosecution witnesses supported the allegation of bribery against him and that the enquiry officer mechanically returned findings of “supervisory lapse” despite absence of cogent evidence. The petitioner challenged the enquiry report, punishment order of compulsory retirement, and subsequent appellate and review orders.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the disciplinary proceedings were fundamentally flawed as there was no recovery from him and no direct evidence connecting him with the alleged demand or acceptance of bribe. Reliance was also placed upon official dumping registers to contend that consignments had been duly processed on the same day. The petitioner additionally challenged the proceedings on the ground that no prior approval had been obtained from the competent authority under Regulation 62 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971.
The respondents opposed the writ petition by arguing that the scope of judicial review in service jurisprudence is extremely limited. It was submitted that the complainant had consistently implicated the petitioner during departmental proceedings and that the record demonstrated deliberate withholding of clearance of consignments to coerce payment of illegal gratification. The respondents further argued that the penalty imposed was proportionate to the gravity of misconduct.
The High Court reiterated the settled principles governing judicial review in disciplinary matters and relied extensively upon the Supreme Court judgments in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran. The Court observed that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as a second appellate authority unless the findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or vitiated by procedural illegality.
The Court held that the enquiry officer had considered oral and documentary evidence, including the complainant’s testimony and official records. Since there was material on record supporting the findings, the Court refused to interfere merely because the petitioner disputed the sufficiency or appreciation of evidence. The Court also found that adequate opportunity had been granted to the petitioner during the enquiry proceedings and therefore no violation of principles of natural justice was made out.
On the issue of prior approval under Regulation 62 of the 1971 Regulations, the Court held that the provision was directory and enabling in nature. The use of the expression “may” indicated that prior approval was not a mandatory precondition for initiation of common disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, absence of such approval did not vitiate the proceedings.
While examining proportionality of punishment, the Court relied upon Union of India v. G. Ganayutham and Punjab & Sind Bank v. Raj Kumar to reiterate that courts should interfere with disciplinary punishment only where the penalty shocks the conscience of the Court. Considering the sensitive nature of duties involving food grain consignments and the seriousness of the allegations, the Court held that compulsory retirement could not be termed disproportionate.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the chargesheet, enquiry report, punishment order, and review order imposing compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. The Court held that the disciplinary findings were based on material evidence, suffered from no procedural illegality, and did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.