IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 10184 of 2006(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.K.BABU, S/O. RARU, PARACHIKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, RAROTH VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY, HELPER, MAVELI STORE, KAITHAPOYIL. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOCHI. 2. ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER (P & A)I/C KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, KOCHI. 3. REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI. ADVS. SRI.JOY GEORGE, SC, SUPPLYCO SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SRI N.D.PREMACHANDRAN,SC,SUPPLYCO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt WP(C).No. 10184 of 2006 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of the judgment in C.C.30/1999 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode dated 5.1.2002. Ext.P2 :- Copy of the proceedings No.AG-3774/95 dated 31.12.2003 of the 3rd respondent. Ext.P3 :- Copy of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent dt.26.6.2004. Ext.P4 :- Copy of the order No.D23-11316/95 dated 15.6.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P5 :- Copy of the revision filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent dt.5.11.2005. Ext.P6 :- Copy of the order No.D23.11316/95 dated 11.12.2005 of the 1st respondent. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL //True Copy// P.A. to Judge S. SIRI JAGAN, J ----------------------- W.P.(C.) No.10184 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a helper in the Maveli Store under the respondent. On inspection of the store on a particular day, shortage in stock was detected pursuant to which, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, which culminated in Ext.P2 order imposing the punishment of recovery of the loss caused on account of the shortage of stock, from the petitioner. By Ext.P2 liability was fixed at Rs.1,51,082/-. Petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, who by Ext.P4 reduce the liability to Rs.27,224/-. The revision filed against the orders was dismissed. It is under the above circumstances, petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P2, P4 and P6, which are the original, appellate and revisional orders. W.P.(C.) No.10184 of 2006 -: 2 :- 2. The contention of the petitioner is that in respect of the same set of facts prosecution proceedings were initiated by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode, which ended in Ext.P1 judgment of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge wherein, the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charges. Because of the findings in Ext.P1 judgment, petitioner cannot be visited with penalty for the alleged deficit in stock is his contention. The petitioner would contend that he is only a helper and he cannot be made liable for the shortage in stock. If at all anybody is responsible that is the Manager, who is the custodian of stock, according to the petitioner. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein they have taken the contention that the petitioner was found guilty of the misconduct of causing shortage in stock after conducting an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the misconduct on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer. The learned counsel for the respondents points out that the service W.P.(C.) No.10184 of 2006 -: 3 :- conditions of the petitioner are governed by the Helpers Service Rules, 1978. Clause 13(ii) of the said Rules specifically provides that helpers are jointly responsible with the Assistant-in-charge of the depot for custody, maintenance and proper display of stocks/goods in the almirahs/racks and counters etc., sale of goods and for deficit in stock if any. It is further pointed out that as per Circular No.43/93 dated 29.6.1993 this has been specifically made clear that helpers would be jointly liable for deficit in stock in Maveli Stores and Depots. According to the respondents, since in the enquiry it has been proved that there was deficit in stock, the petitioner is jointly and severally liable for the deficit in stock, which only has been ordered to be recovered as a punishment, which would be liable to be recovered even otherwise. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The documents produced by the petitioner, himself, show that there was a domestic enquiry conducted and an enquiry report has been submitted. Petitioner has not produced any evidence to challenge the findings in the enquiry. He has no W.P.(C.) No.10184 of 2006 -: 4 :- case against the conduct of the enquiry itself. Without challenging the findings in the enquiry, petitioner cannot successfully challenge the orders of punishment on the ground that he is not guilty. He has not even produced the enquiry report to show that the findings are perverse without which he cannot challenge the punishment. The petitioner only relies on Ext.P8 judgment of the Criminal Court. It is settled law that acquittal in the criminal case does not bar disciplinary proceedings. The standard of proof required in criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are totally different. In the criminal case, the prosecution has to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in disciplinary proceedings, what is required is only satisfaction of a reasonable person on the basis of the evidence adduced in the enquiry that the delinquent is guilty. Further, the prosecution proceedings have been conducted by the State and not by the Management, whereas the disciplinary proceedings are conducted by the Management. In the above circumstances, without challenging the enquiry proceedings, W.P.(C.) No.10184 of 2006 -: 5 :- petitioner cannot succeed merely relying on Ext.P1 judgment of the Criminal Court acquitting the petitioner. The respondents have, with the help of the Service Rules applicable and the Circular issued, proved that the helpers are also jointly liable with the Assistant-in-charge for deficit in stock. Actually, the order does not amount a punishment even. What has been directed is recovery loss caused on account of deficit in stock, for which the petitioner is liable once it is proved that there is deficit in stock, which has been so found. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Jvt