THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 20968 of 2010 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by a Depot Clerk (Oil), who has retired from service on 31.08.2009, on attaining the age of superannuation, complaining of the illegal deduction of Rs.34,348/- from his terminal benefits, through order passed on 26.06.2010, by the Depot Manager, Achampet Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. It is submitted that the writ petitioner has maintained a clean record all through and has retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the After Noon of 31.08.2009. There are no disciplinary proceedings or any criminal cases pending against him at the time of his retirement, but however, the impugned order has been passed by the Depot Manager, Achampet Depot, unilaterally without putting the writ petitioner on notice or giving him an opportunity to meet the case of the respondents, recovering a sum of Rs. 34,348/- at the rate of Rs.62/- per liter, towards the cost of 554 liters of engine oil said to have been found short as at the time of retirement of the writ petitioner. This, in turn, is based upon a report said to have been submitted by the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), Achampet, on 09.09.2009. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that routinely the Depot Managers pass orders of this nature against drivers, conductors and depot clerks and seek to recover the substantial amounts from the terminal benefits of the employees, who give under duress because of lack of financial support for them in the post-retirement period. In view of this serious nature of allegations thrown, I gave notice to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation, Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, on 24.08.2010. Today, Sri Anand Shindey deputizing for the learned Standing Counsel would submit that he has received instructions from the Depot Manager, Achampet that the impugned order has been passed erroneously against the writ petitioner. It is fundamental principle that no order, which is likely to impact another individual gravely, could have been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to such a person. Principles of natural justice demand that no person should be condemned unheard of. Since the impugned order has been passed on 26.06.2010, without putting the writ petitioner on notice, it deserves to be set at naught, for sheer violation of the principles of natural justice. To my mind, the matter does not rest there. If truly, the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) of Achampet Depot has noticed shortage of engine oil of 554 liters, then, proper steps should have been taken by the Depot Manager for fixing the responsibility and accountability for the alleged loss/shortage of such a huge quantity of engine oil. Such loss or shortage cannot go unnoticed or un-remedied. Any such measure would amount to appropriating the loss to the Corporation, if not amount to sweeping the dust under the carpet. The Corporation, being a public sector undertaking, has to account for its assets properly. If an employee, who is in the custody of any of the properties of the Corporation, is demitting his office either due to his retirement or transfer or promotion or unfortunate removal or dismissal from service, stock taking exercise has got to be carried out in his presence. After the departure of an employee, behind his back, stock taking exercise cannot be carried out and he cannot be mulcted with the responsibility to render an account for the stock entrusted to him during the currency of his employment. Therefore, this is a clear case where the Depot Manager, Achampet Depot has failed to discharge his fundamental duty and trust reposed in him by the Corporation. If the loss of 554 liters of engine oil has truly occasioned, such a loss cannot go unaccounted for and reimbursed to the Corporation. If, on the other hand, no such loss of stock had ever taken place, the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), who is alleged to have submitted a report to that effect on 09.09.2009, must be treated as misleading his higher officials. Such an action on his part also amounts to dereliction of duties. Therefore, it is high time that the 1st respondent Managing Director of the Corporation would devise an appropriate measure by laying down a policy decision prescribing the procedural details relating to the method and manner of stock taking at the time of demitting the office by the employees concerned and in their presence. Since the writ petitioner has retired from service on 31.08.2009 and a huge money of approximately Rs.34,348/- has been unjustly denied benefit of utilization by him, the APSRTC would do well to return the said money forthwith together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, commencing from 01.10.2009, inasmuch as 30 days period after the date of retirement of an employee can be construed to be a reasonable period for settling the terminal benefits. It is, however, made clear that the amount of interest, which is now ordered to be paid on the money withheld from the petitioner, can be recovered from the erring 2nd respondent Depot Manager, Achampet, for which purpose, necessary enquiry be held. It is needless to observe that the 1st respondent will ensure that a proper and careful audit is being carried out at Achampet Depot to ensure that there is no loss/shortage of engine oil or any other valuable assets of the Corporation and in case, the audit reveals any such loss/shortage, appropriate accountability be fixed on the employees concerned so as to make good the said loss suffered and sustained by the Corporation. The Writ Petition stands allowed by directing the respondents to pay the writ petitioner forthwith a sum of Rs.34,348/- recovered from his terminal benefits together with interest at 6% per annum calculated with effect from 01.10.2009, but however costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 3rd September 2010 ksld