HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21679 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Junior Engineer in the Food Corporation of India. The petitioner worked at Visakhapatnam between July, 1991 and September, 1994. During that period, repair works for the floor of the godowns of the Food Corporation of India, Visakhapatnam, was undertaken. The work was entrusted to a Contractor. The petitioner was under obligation to supervise the execution of the work. According to the agreement, the cement was to be supplied by the Food Corporation of India and the Contractor has to secure the other construction material and arrange for labour. A charge memo, dated 11.06.1996, was issued alleging that for the work in question eight trucks loaded with cement was dispatched from the Food Corporation of India godowns, Samarlakota, whereas the entry at the Food Corporation of India godowns, Visakhapatnam, was only in respect of five truck loads of cement. It was alleged that though three trucks of cement is not accounted for at the entry level, the petitioner certified the utilization of the entire cement while making notes in the M.books. He was required to submit the explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.07.1996. On a consideration of the same, the respondent imposed minor penalty of withholding of two increments due for the years 1998-99 for a period of one year each, without cumulative effect. It has also directed recovery of a sum of Rs.33,000/- from his pay in 33 equal instalments through order, dated 06.09.1997. Appeal preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority was rejected. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that he is not at all responsible to account for the cement and no defect was pointed out, as to the execution of the work or the standard thereof. He submits that the cost of entire cement supplied to the Contractor was recovered from the bills and there is absolutely no justification for the respondents in ordering recovery of Rs.33,000/- from his pay. The respondents filed counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner did not act diligently and he did not properly verify the entry of three trucks loaded with cement. Heard Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Food Corporation of India for the respondents. The petitioner was entrusted with the duty of supervising the work of repair to the floor of Food Corporation of India godowns at Visakhapatnam. As observed earlier, the cement was to be supplied directly by the Food Corporation of India, whereas the other components were to be arranged by the Contractor. During the verification of the supply of material, it was found that as against eight truck loads of cement dispatched from Samarlakota, entries were made only as regards five truck loads of cement. The petitioner was issued a charge memo on that basis. In his explanation, the petitioner stated that he is not at all responsible for making entries at the gates and that other works certified by him are as per the specific standards. He attributed the failure to enter three truck loads of cement in M.Books to two factors; namely, the possible absence of the security at the relevant point of time and there being an another improvised entry into the premises on account of removal of the compound wall. The respondents have chosen to impose a minor penalty and thereby, avoided disciplinary enquiry. This, in turn, resulted in a handicap to the petitioner to prove the relevant facts. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the works certified by him were not upto the standard nor it was alleged that he has diverted the cement to any other place. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner ought to have correctly verified the arrivals of the stocks of cement. The allegations in this regard certainly justify a punishment of stoppage of increments imposed against him by the respondents. So far as the recovery ordered against the petitioner is concerned, it needs to be observed that the cost of eight metric tons of cement has been recovered from the bills of the Contractor. Hence, there was no justification for ordering recovery of the same from the petitioner also. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed, setting aside the impugned order only to the extent of ordering recovery of Rs.33,000/- from the petitioner. The other punishment imposed against the petitioner is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 17th June 2010 dr