IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 314 of 2010 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.34153/2002 Dated 30/10/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------- M.RAVICHANDRAN, NOW WORKING AS RATIONING INSPECTOR, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD AND NOW RESIDING AT RAJATHARAMYAM, VIDYA NAGAR, PUTHUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERLA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R.BINDU FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.314/2010 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 9th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the appellant. He was an Upper Division Clerk working under the Civil Supplies Department. He was sent on deputation to the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation and he was put in charge of its Manjeri district godown. On stock verification, it was found that during his tenure there was a shortage of goods worth Rs.31,179.70. So, the appellant was served with Ext.P1 memo of charges, pointing out that the loss was caused because of his negligence and carelessness in handling the commodities. He submitted Ext.P2 written statement of defence. The third respondent considering Ext.P2 reply, passed Ext.P3 order, directing to recover Rs.31,180/- from the appellant in 24 monthly instalments with 18% interest. Against the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The appellate authority by Ext.P5 order, reduced WA No.314/2010 - 2 - his liability to Rs.18,108/-. Thereupon, he filed Ext.P7 revision petition before the 1st respondent Government. The Government considered the petition and passed Ext.P8 order, further reducing the liability to Rs.17,001/-. Challenging Exts.P3, P5 and P8 orders, the Original Petition was filed. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit, supporting the impugned orders. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, took the view that what is ordered is only recovery of the actual loss caused and therefore, the impugned orders cannot be said to be vitiated. In that view of the matter, the challenge against the impugned orders was repelled. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is preferred. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He submitted that in similar circumstances Ext.P6 order has been passed absolving another employee. We have gone through Ext.P6. It was a case where the explanation of the concerned employee was found to be satisfactory and therefore, he was absolved of the liability. The learned Single Judge has also considered Ext.P6 order and taken the view that the benefit WA No.314/2010 - 3 - granted under the said order cannot be extended to the appellant herein. We find no reason to take a different view. The shortage is admitted and therefore, recovery of the amount resulting from the shortage is fully justified. So, we find no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. It is clarified that the recovery shall be made from the appellant in 24 equal monthly instalments, as provided in Ext.P3 order. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. nm.