IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 3568 OF 2001 Between : B. Prabhakar Rao. ...PETITIONER A N D Girijan Cooperative Corporation Ltd., and another…RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 3568 OF 2001 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed to issue writ, order or direction, particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of respondent No.1 in R.C.No.474/2001, dated 09.11.2001, communicating the decision of the 2nd respondent passed in Resolution No.148/2001-2002 and also the proceedings D.Dis.No.150/2003.Admn.8, dated 10.02.2003 of respondent No.1 communicating the decision of respondent No.2 vide proceedings in Board Res.No.171/20020-2003, dated 22.1.2003, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner joined the respondent Corporation as a Measurer on 10.07.1975, and subsequently promoted to the post of Salesman in the year 1981. While, the petitioner was working at Rampachodavaram, he was placed under suspension on the allegation of misappropriation of funds and a charge memo was issued to that effect, for which, the petitioner gave a detailed explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted and basing on the enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were ended in dismissal. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Managing Director is neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority for framing the charges and therefore it will go to the root of the case. He also contended that no witnesses were examined during the course of enquiry and the principles of natural justice have not been violated. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondents contended that when the Managing Director is the superior authority, he can exercise the powers under Rule IV of Chapter 4 of the Girijan Cooperative Corporation Service Rules, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The charge is that the petitioner failed to account for the daily requirements stock, worth about Rs.23,701/-, for which the petitioner stated that he advanced money to tribal farmers for purchase of Myrabolans in the month of January, 1999, on the promise of handing over of stock in a couple of days. Similarly, he failed to account for empties worth Rs.4,443/-, for which the delinquent stated that 200 numbers of gunnies to tribal ryots for myrabolans procurement. The findings of the Executive Officer are that even after a lapse of about eleven months, there was no explanation given by delinquent for misappropriation. The petitioner remitted the entire amount to the respondent Corporation after receipt of charge memo. 6. From the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner committed temporary misappropriation, because after framing the charge memo he paid the entire amount to the respondent Corporation. If the misappropriation is not detected, then the petitioner would not have refunded the amount. The conduct of petitioner is not above board. The explanation for misappropriation is totally unsatisfactory. No witnesses need to be examined in the enquiry, because petitioner admitted that he advanced monies to tribal farmers. In view of his admissions to the charges, the burden shifts to him to establish that certain amounts were used for beneficiaries. There is no such evidence adduced by petitioner during enquiry. It is not a case of denial of giving opportunity to adduce evidence on his behalf. The delinquent himself requested to close the enquiry. 7. In the counter filed by the respondents it is stated that the petitioner was similarly charged in another case and removed from service. But, on appeal he was reinstated into service. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner is habitual offender indulging in series of misappropriation cases and once he was reverted as measurer cum workman permanently in 1982. Sentence of fine of 300/- was imposed on the petitioner in the year 1996. These aspects have not been denied or disputed by the petitioner. There was no change in the attitude of the petitioner. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the proved charges when compared to other delinquents cannot be accepted. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J DECEMBER 2, 2010. YVL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 3568 OF 2001 DATED : 02.12.2010