THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.3126 OF 2001 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings viz., R.C.No.3237/99.Admn.B., dated 21.12.2000, whereunder and whereby, the petitioner was dismissed from corporation service with immediate effect under Rule 2 (b) (ix) chapter IV of Girijan Cooperative Corporation Service Rules, as arbitrary and illegal and to direct the reinstatement of the petitioner together with back-wages, continuity of service and all other consequential and attendant benefits. 2. The allegations in the petition reads as follows: The petitioner was appointed as MCW in respondent No.1 office. He was kept in-charge for the post of Salesman, Rythu Bazar, Amalapuram. In pursuance of the instructions, he had given wide publicity of all Girijan Cooperative Corporation products in order to step up the sales as per the targets fixed. On 30.12.1999, a charge memo was issued and enquiry was conducted. In the findings, it was observed that supply of items on credit was untenable. He stated that the observation so far literally viewed is ofcourse correct, but in practice, it is highly impossible to rigidly follow those principles, while dealing with the public in the urban areas, particularly, Amalapuram. Unless credit supplies were made, the sales would not be promoted to the expected level and that therefore, the request of the employees for credit of one month might be accepted in the interest of turnover. As he is an unqualified salesman, he had relied upon the Estate Manager with a view to step up the sales and issued the materials on credit, ofcourse discriminating who are reliable and trustworthy. Stocks worth of Rs.30,000/- approrimately were given on credit. Deseeded tamarind stocks were dumped in the sales counter without his indent and without assessing any need or demand in the area. As the supply was not commensurate with the demand, the stocks were dried due to its natural behaviour and was oozing due to over stocking. This loss is estimated about Rs.55,200/-. He had collected the amount from the debtors and remitted the same to the office. Although, the commodity suffered drying as stated above, he had disposed of all the tamarind stock and remitted the amount found deficit. Here, one thing he stressed is that he is a poor tribal man, just living in the area to eke out his livelihood with the meagre pay he was getting. If his version that under the above compelled circumstances, he had to give materials on credit is not believed, it may just be considered as to how he could remit the entire amount within a short span of time. This proves that giving credit under compelled circumstances and in good faith, and collecting the amount later is a fact and he so managed while giving credit. He took precautions not to allow corporation to put loss thereby and it was done out of curiosity and anxiety to improve the sales, even without thinking the implications, as he was unqualified to hold the post. One elevated and magnanimous view may be taken in the matter. The term "misappropriation" is not at all applicable in his case. Whoever dishonsestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property is defined as misappropriation. In this case, it is proved that he gave stocks on credit and collected and remitted the amount to the office. Also, the tamarind was dried up due to long storage in the sales counter as stated above. He submitted that he was served with proceedings Rc.No.3237/99.Admn.8, dated 31.07.2000, by respondent No.1 herein enclosing a copy of the report styling the same as Enquiry Report asking him to submit his written explanation to the same. He submitted that having received the said proceedings, dated 31.07.2000, he was shocked to know that an enquiry was held. No witnesses were examined in his presence, giving any opportunity to him to cross-examine them. He was never asked to appear before respondent No.1. It appears from the report that respondent No.1 himself has pursued the records and concluded the said allegation against him. As per service rules of Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, a detailed procedure has been provided under Appendix-E as to how an enquiry is to be conducted, evidence is to be recorded and findings have to be given. No such provisions have been complied in this case; the report of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and his conclusions are vititated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice without reference to his explanation submitted against the report. Respondent No.1 passed final orders under Rc.No.3237/99.Admn.B, dated 21.12.2000 dismissing him from service. The said order was served on him on 10.01.2001. He preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 on 22.01.2001 and the same is pending. Assailing the order, dated 21.12.2000, passed by respondent No.1, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the findings in the report of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and his conclusions are vitiated for non-compliance of principles of natural justice; that without reference to the petitioner's contention raised, final order was passed dismissing him from services and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned proceedings. 4. The petitioner while working as incharge for the post of Salesman, Rythu Bazar, Amalapuram, is alleged to have misappropriated articles worth about Rs.55,560.44 ps. Thereafter, necessary charges have been framed against the delinquent i.e., the petitioner with regard to the irregularities committed by him. The delinquent received the charge memo on 08.02.2000. He has not given any explanation nor requested for extension of time to give explanation. Furthermore, the delinquent admitted the charges in pursuance of his confessional statement dated 01.12.1999. Basing on his admission, it is proved that he failed to account for the Daily Register Stocks, worth about Rs.55,000/-, while handing over the charge on 30.11.1999 to his successor. He also failed to account for the empties worth Rs.857.50 ps. and that he tampered with two bills. So, from the documents, it is established that the delinquent i.e., the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs.23,593/- by utilizing the sale proceeds for personal use. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the Rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice, what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. This Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over a decision based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer in disciplinary proceedings, where there is some relevant material, which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material reasonably supported the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authorities, it is not the function of this Court to review the same and reach a different conclusion. It is well settled that if the findings recorded by disciplinary authority are found to be perverse, which are not based upon legal evidence, then the Court is empowered to treat such flaw as a legal flaw and quash the impugned action. 5. He was in-charge of the depot, wherein he has to maintain stock register. That stock register is not maintained properly and further, he has misappropriated the amount. He also intentionally struck of the wrong balances, with a view to cover up the deficit. He is not supposed to supply the articles on credit basis to the Tribals and at the earliest point of time, he had given a statement, which would go to show his lapse. His contention that without going through the contents, his higher officials made him to sign on the statement, cannot be accepted. Therefore, the statement given by the petitioner is sufficient to find him guilty. Furthermore, enquiry was conducted under Rule 3 Appendix E, Chapter IV of Girijan Co-operative Corporation Service Rules. Petitioner has not submitted any explanation to the charge memo. Petitioner admitted before Enquiry Officer to the effect that he gave certain goods on credit and he could not collect the amount. Petitioner is not supposed to supply goods on credit. He also admitted about tampering of bills, but reason for the said tampering is that his son aged three years ragged the record. The same is not accepted, as the said fact is not proved by the petitioner. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. None of the findings is shown to be perverse. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J December 02, 2010 MD 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.3126 of 2001 BETWEEN: S. Satyanarayana Reddy ... PETITIONER AND Girijan Coop. Corporation Limited and another ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.3126 OF 2001 December 02, 2010