THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS vs JAYANTA MOHAN SINGHA Advocate - MR S BORTHAKUR, SR. ADV., ,MR. K GOGOI,MS. P BORAH — WA/316/2024

Case under Gauhati High Court Rules Section V A. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GAHC010127062024

Filing Number

WA/7157/2024

Filing Date

21-Jun-2024

Registration No

WA/316/2024

Registration Date

10-Sep-2024

Judge

Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

Coram

Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

10237 - Writ Appeals under the Gauhati High Court Rules. ( 204 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Gauhati High Court Rules Section V A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS

    Adv. MR. P K ROY,MS. M DUTTA,MS. M DUTTA, ,MR. S K CHAKRABORTY,MRS. A CHAKRABORTY,MS. M DUTTA

  2. 2.THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NE

  3. 3.THE GENERAL MANAGER REGIONAL

  4. 4.THE AREA MANAGER

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JAYANTA MOHAN SINGHA Advocate - MR S BORTHAKUR, SR. ADV., ,MR. K GOGOI,MS. P BORAH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev ChoudhuryView PDF

    Case Summary: WA/316/2024 Court Decision: The Gauhati High Court dismissed FCI's appeal and upheld the Single Judge's decision reducing the respondent's punishment from removal from service with gratuity forfeiture to compulsory retirement without forfeiture. The court found the original harsh punishment disproportionate given the respondent's 34-year unblemished service record, absence of specific findings of theft or misappropriation, and prolonged 16-year delay in proceedings. Key Reasoning: While acknowledging courts cannot act as appellate forums for punishment review, the court applied proportionality principles under the Wednesbury test. The absence of concrete evidence proving intentional wrongdoing—only inferred misappropriation from foodgrain shortage—combined with the respondent's clean record, made the severe penalty excessive and warranted judicial intervention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    - For Orders -

    Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev ChoudhuryView PDF

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    - Admission With Notice Served - Reply Not Filed -

    Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

  6. 08-Jan-2026

    Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev ChoudhuryView PDF

  7. 08-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 22-Oct-2025

    Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev ChoudhuryView PDF

  9. 05-May-2025

    Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan NairView PDF

  10. 10-Apr-2025

    Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan NairView PDF

  11. 07-Mar-2025

    Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan NairView PDF

  12. 27-Jan-2025

    Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice Kaushik GoswamiView PDF

  13. 28-Oct-2024

    Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan NairView PDF

  14. 13-Sep-2024

    Honourable Mr. Justice Lanusungkum Jamir,honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan NairView PDF

  15. 21-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. WA/316/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WA/316/2024 Court Decision: The Gauhati High Court dismissed FCI's appeal and upheld the Single Judge's decision reducing the respondent's punishment from removal from service with gratuity forfeiture to compulsory retirement without forfeiture. The court found the original harsh punishment disproportionate given the respondent's 34-year unblemished service record, absence of specific findings of theft or misappropriation, and prolonged 16-year delay in proceedings. Key Reasoning: While acknowledging courts cannot act as appellate forums for punishment review, the court applied proportionality principles under the Wednesbury test. The absence of concrete evidence proving intentional wrongdoing—only inferred misappropriation from foodgrain shortage—combined with the respondent's clean record, made the severe penalty excessive and warranted judicial intervention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case