IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 OP.No. 34153 of 2002(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.RAVICHANDRAN, ROHINI KUNNUMPURAM, KALPATHY, PALAKKAD, NOW WORKING AS SENIOR ADDISTANT GRADE II, DISTRICT DEPOT (CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION), W. YAKKARA – PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SMT.R.BINDU, MR.SATHISH NINAN, MR.R.KRISHNAN NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS,(A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BAIJU CHANDRAN. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 34153/2002-N: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 57753/2002 IN O.P. NO. 34153/2002-N DISMISSED 30/10/2009. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DTD. 01/02/1997 ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 10/04/1997 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.CS.C9-5843/97(1) DTD. 18/02/1999 PASSED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. (CS) C9-6009/2000 DTD. 17/01/2001 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. G.O(RT) NO.164/02/FCS & CAD DD. 24/06/2002 REDUCING THE LIABILITY TO RS.17,0001/-. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- O.P.NO.34153 OF 2002 (N) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T During 1995-96 petitioner was working as U.D Clerk in charge of Manjeri District godown of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. He was issued Ext.P1 memo of charges, with the allegation that while holding the post of Stock Custodian in the depot, caused loss of Rs.31,179.70 towards costs of articles found short. It was alleged that the action of the petitioner was clear negligence and careless handling of commodities and being a misconduct, petitioner was called upon to submit his statement of defence. 2. Accordingly, by Ext.P2, statement of defence was submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter by Ext.P3 order, the 3rd respondent ordered recovery of Rs.31,180/- from the Petitioner to be realized from his salary in 24 monthly instalments with 18% interest. He filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and which was rejected, but however by Ext.P5 order he was informed that the liability was reduced to Rs.18,108/-. He filed Ext.P7 review before OP.No.34153/02 :2 : the first respondent and that was considered and disposed of by Ext.P8 order reducing his liability to Rs.17,001/-. It is challenging Exts.P3,P5 and P8 orders the writ petition is filed. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. According to the 3rd respondent when the petitioner was in charge of the District Depot of the Corporation during 1995-96, there was a shortage in the stocks worth Rs.31,179.70 and that this was noticed during the audit of accounts conducted by the internal audit wing of the Corporation. It is stated that it was thereupon that Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued. The written statement of the petitioner was received and after obtaining remarks of the Regional Manager of the Corporation, Ext.P3 order was issued directing recovery of the loss from the petitioner. It is stated that in Ext.P4 appeal the main contention of the petitioner was to allow handling shortage, since there was distribution to the Maveli stores from the depot. In so far as this contention is concerned, it is stated in the counter affidavit that from 1.2.1995, the system of shortage allowance was dispensed with by the corporation. It is stated that despite this, the liability was reduced taking into account the possibility of shortage due to drying while the materials were OP.No.34153/02 :3 : stocked in the depot. As far as Ext.P8 order passed in the review is concerned, it is stated that the liability was further reduced taking into account a lenient view on the ground that there can be shortage due to moisture and the commodities getting dried due to heat. 4. From the pleadings of both parties, it is therefore evident that during the time when the Petitioner was in charge of the depot there shortage of goods was noticed, during the course of audit. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated but however only recovery of loss was ordered, which cannot be considered as a punishment imposed. He filed appeal and revision in which liability was considerably reduced. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that before Ext.P3 order was issued Petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing. No rule has been pointed out, that the disciplinary authority was under an obligation to grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. That apart in Ext.P2, apart from praying for waiver of the liability, petitioner did not also seek an opportunity of hearing. In any case, on facts I am also not shown that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in as much as all that has been ordered in Ext.P3 is recovery of loss actually caused. In such a OP.No.34153/02 :4 : situation, I am not prepared to hold at this distance of time that the proceedings which culminated in Ext.P3 order on 18.2.1999 is vitiated for not hearing the petitioner. 6. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Ext.P6, an order passed by the first respondent and contended that a similarly situated employee of the 3rd respondent was absolved of his liabilities. However, a reading of Ext.P6 order itself shows that for absolving the employee concerned, the Government was only relying on a report of the Regional Manager of the Civil Supplies Corporation which clearly states that shortage was due to piecemeal issue, shrinkage,cleaning etc. and it was on that basis the explanation of the delinquent officer was found acceptable. In this case there is no such report to support the case pleaded by the petitioner. If that be so, Ext.P6 does not include the case of the petitioner in any manner. Having regard to the above, I see nothing erroneous in Exts.P3,P5 and P8. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ OP.No.34153/02 :5 : ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------- O.P.NO.34153 OF 2002 (N) ------------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T Dated.30.10.2009