THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2335 OF 2006 DATED: 06.02.2008 Between: K. Sudhakara Lingam .. Petitioner And The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2335 OF 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the office order passed by the 4th respondent, dated 20.06.2005, in proceedings No.01/30 (3)/2004-NDK, as arbitrary and illegal. Under the impugned proceedings, an amount of Rs.1,27,258.73 ps. was ordered to be recovered from the settlement dues of the petitioner alleging that he was responsible for shortage of stores items E.108 worth Rs.1,27,258.73 ps. It appears, the petitioner, while working as Deputy Superintendent (Materials) in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) at Zonal Stores, Kadapa, suffered from the disease ‘dementia’, which is nearer to the disease Alzheimer’s, due to which he was unable to remember the things properly. Thereupon, he was referred to Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, where the doctors opined that he would be unable to discharge the duties. The Medical Officer of the respondent Corporation also examined the petitioner and gave a report that he was medically unfit to hold the post of Deputy Superintendent (Materials). Basing on the said report, the petitioner was made to retire on medical grounds with effect from 11.04.2005, in terms of Regulation 6 (A) (4) of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964, by the order, dated 11.04.2005, of the 2nd respondent – Controller of Stores, Zonal Stores, Kadapa. While so, after two months thereof, the impugned order was passed by the 4th respondent- Depot Manager, Nandikotkur Depot, stating that the Accounts Officer (A & I), Kurnool, reported that the Regional Audit Party, Kurnool, who inspected stores accounts of Nandikotkur Depot on 07.01.2003, found shortage of stores items E.108 worth Rs.1,27,258.73 ps., and, thus, the petitioner, being worked as Stores Supervisor at Nandikotkur Depot at that particular point of time, held responsible for the said shortage and the said amount was ordered to be recovered from his settlement dues. Therefore, the said amount has been withheld from the retirement benefits of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner was suffering with ‘dementia’ since three to four years prior to the date of his retirement and, in fact, he was not able to perform his duties properly in view of impaired memory and, therefore, during that period, he used to attend to his duties with the assistance of other staff members. In fact, that is the reason why the petitioner was referred for medical examination and to find out whether he is medically fit to hold the post of Deputy Superintendent (Materials), and the Medical Officer submitted a report opining that he was medically unfit to discharge the duties. This itself would clearly indicate that the alleged shortage of stores items was not intentionally caused by the petitioner, but due to his inability to discharge the duties properly on account of impaired memory. Further, the respondents have no authority to order recovery against a retired employee. Therefore, the impugned order for recovery is arbitrary and illegal. Heard both sides. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner, who was suffering with impaired memory on account of dementia, was unable to discharge the duties properly and, therefore, referred to medical examination and, on the basis of the report submitted by the medical officer that he was medically unfit to hold the post held by him, he was made to retire on medical grounds with effect from 11.04.2005. It appears, the petitioner was suffering with such disease since about three to four years prior to the date of his retirement on medical grounds. The audit report, which is the basis for passing the impugned order, seems to have been made in the year 2003, but the same was given effect to after two years thereof i.e. after the retirement of the petitioner. What prevented the authorities from conducting an enquiry into such huge loss of material worth Rs.1,27,258.73 ps., as soon as the audit report is submitted by the auditor, is not known. The petitioner was neither issued with any charge sheet nor he was suspended from service nor was any responsibility fixed on him before he retired from service, in spite of there being an audit report available. Be that as it may, an audit report can be a basis for conducting enquiry into any irregularities and fixing responsibility on the concerned employee, but it cannot be a basis for ordering recovery automatically from the settlement dues of an employee, solely on the ground that at particular point of time, he held the post pertaining to which irregularities have been found out. Since no detailed enquiry was conducted after the auditor submitted his report and no notice of any kind was issued before passing of the impugned order, in my considered opinion, the impugned order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice apart from the fact that there is no power available to the respondents to conduct an enquiry or issue a recovery order against an employee who already retired from service, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. For all the above reasons, the impugned order, dated 20.06.2005, is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner the amount withheld from his settlement dues i.e. Rs.1,27,258.73 ps. within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 6th February, 2008. IBL