The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to interfere with the compulsory retirement of a Food Corporation of India (FCI) employee accused of supervisory lapses in a bribery case, holding that the penalty was not “disproportionate” given the sensitive nature of the duties involved.Justice Sandeep Moudgil emphasised that in matters concerning the acceptance of food grain consignments, “dereliction” of duty is a grave misconduct that justifies stringent administrative action. The high court held that the punishment can be interfered with only when it “shocks the conscience” of the court while hearing the plea filed by Om Parkash, an FCI technical assistant who challenged the review order dated October 20, 2023, whereby he was compulsorily retired from service.“The penalty imposed cannot be said to shock the conscience of the court. The misconduct pertains to dereliction of duty in a sensitive sphere involving the acceptance of food grain consignments. The penalty of compulsory retirement, in such circumstances, cannot be termed as disproportionate so as to warrant interference,” the May 7 order read. Justice Sandeep Moudgil pointed out that interference in disciplinary matters is warranted only where the findings are perverse.The petitioner was seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, including arrears.‘No procedural unfairness in enquiry’The high court pointed out that interference in disciplinary matters is warranted only where the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or where the decision-making process is vitiated by illegality or irrationality.The contention raised by the petitioner that no recovery was effected from him or that the evidence led during the enquiry was insufficient could not be accepted by the court.The court mentioned that the plea of violation of principles of natural justice was equally untenable, as the court found that the enquiry proceedings did not suffer from any procedural unfairness.The high court dismissed the plea filed by the employee and upheld the penalty of compulsory retirement. Joining, trap and compulsory retirementIt was claimed that the petitioner, Om Parkash, was appointed as a technical assistant with the Food Corporation of India in September 2014 and had, until the present controversy, discharged his duties without blemish. It was added that while posted at Punjab, a complaint dated May 21, 2021, was lodged by one Sikanderjit Singh before the vigilance bureau alleging demand of illegal gratification by certain officials, including the petitioner, for facilitating the acceptance of rice consignments. Story continues below this adActing on the complaint, a trap was laid wherein an amount of Rs 58,000 was allegedly received; however, significantly, no recovery was effected from the petitioner, and the amount was instead recovered from a private individual, namely Paramjit Sharma, leading to the registration of an FIR. Subsequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension, which was later revoked, and a common departmental chargesheet dated September 29, 2021, was issued against him along with other officers. Aggrieved by the alleged illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable actions culminating in his compulsory retirement, the petitioner filed the plea before the high court seeking quashing of the said orders and consequential reliefs. ArgumentsAppearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Vikas Chatrath contended that the entire disciplinary action was based on allegations which are not supported by the record.Story continues below this adIt was submitted that though a trap was allegedly conducted pursuant to the complaint, no recovery was effected from the petitioner, and the alleged tainted amount was recovered from a private individual.He urged that the penalty of compulsory retirement was wholly disproportionate, especially when the charge of bribery had not been proved, and the petitioner had an unblemished service record.Representing the FCI, advocate Gurinder Singh submitted that the petition was not maintainable as it seeks re-appreciation of findings recorded in duly conducted departmental proceedings.He contended that the petitioner, being posted as a technical assistant, was directly entrusted with duties relating to the acceptance and quality assessment of rice consignments.Story continues below this adIt was added that the record, including the rice acceptance register, established that consignments delivered by the complainant on May 20, 2021, were neither inspected nor processed in accordance with the prescribed procedure, thereby evidencing a clear breach of duty attributable to the petitioner.