IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.7520 of 2005 Between: Smt. C. Nagalaxmi, Grade-I Acct. Dist. Manager Office, Civil Supplies Corporation, Ongole ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Board of Director, The A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation, Rep by its V.C. and M.D. Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 82 3 The District Manager, Civil Supplies Corporation, Nellore District. 4 The District Manager, Civil Supplies Corporation, Ongole, Prakasam District. 5 The Joint Collector, Nellore and E.O. ED, A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation, Nellore. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued in his No.P.ADMN.A.3/10734/2002, dated 30-3-2005 there by confirming his proceedings No. P.ADMN.A.3/10734/2002, dated 20-01-2003 and consequentially directing the District Manager, Civil Supplies Corporation, Nellore to recover a sum of Rs.3,43,875/- from the petitioner in 101 instalments i.e. 1st instalment at the rate of Rs.3,475/- and remaining 100 instalments at the rate of Rs.3,404/- per month and the consequential action of the 3rd respondent in recovering the amount from the salary of the petitioner as violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary and illegal and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for Respondents : Mr.D.LINGA RAO GThe Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.7520 of 2005 O R D E R : This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the Proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued in his File No.P.ADMN.A.3/10734/2002, dated 30-3-2005 confirming his earlier Proceedings in File No.P.ADMN.A.3/10734/2002, dated 20-01-2003 and directing the 3rd respondent-District Manager, Civil Supplies Corporation, Nellore to recover a sum of Rs.3,43,875/- from the salary of the petitioner in 101 instalments i.e. 1st instalment at the rate of Rs.3,475/- and remaining 100 instalments at the rate of Rs.3,404/- per month and the consequential action of the 3rd respondent in recovering the amount from the salary of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as Accountant Grade-III in the respondent-Corporation in the year 1981. Subsequently, she was promoted as Accountant Grade-II in the year 1986 and further promoted as Accountant Grade-I in the year 1989. On 30-6-1992, she was posted as Godown Incharge at Gudur Mandal Level Stock Point, Gudur (for short ‘MLS Point’). While so, Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced a scheme known as ‘Food For Work’ with a view to provide employment to the people, who are deprived of their livelihood because of poor rainfall/drought conditions in the State. Under the said scheme, the District Manager, A.P. Civil Supplies Corporation will transport the rice from Food Corporation of India Godown to MLS Point and from MLS Point to Fair Price Shop. Further, the Mandal Revenue Officers to whom ‘Food For Work’ rice is allotted have to reallot the stock to fair price shops on the requirement given by the Executive Agency and the Mandal Revenue Officers were also instructed to take immediate steps for lifting the stock from MLS Point to fair price shops. The scheme also contemplates that the Mandal Revenue Officers should ensure that an Officer called as ‘Route Officer’ has to follow the truck transporting the rice and he has to unload the stock at the fair price shop point and attest the receipt of rice stock by the fair price shop dealer. Further, out of the rice allotted to MLS Point, Naidupet, a quantity of 15.930 Metric Tons was allotted to Gurramkonda village in Ozili Mandal, Nellore District. On 21-11-2001 at about 7.00 p.m., the husband of Gurramkonda dealer-Smt.Y.Sridevi approached the petitioner and requested to lift the rice allotted to Gurramkonda village by showing the authorization from his wife to that effect. After obtaining acknowledgment and authorization, she delivered a quantity of 15.930 MTs of rice to him. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Naidupet did not appoint any Route Officer as per the instructions issued under the said scheme and, therefore, the fair price shop dealers themselves were transporting the rice without any Route Officer. After the delivery of rice to the husband of Gurramkonda dealer, the petitioner engaged in other works of MLS Point and at about 8.00 p.m., a rumour was spread between the Hamalies that the stocks delivered to Gurramkonda village were transported to a nearby rice mill. As she was overstrained by that time, she left for her house and by oversight she did not pursue the said rumour further. At about 12.00 midnight on 21-11-2001, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur conducted a raid in M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Rice, Flour and Decorticator Mill, Naidupet and it was found that 15.930 MTs of rice issued from MLS Point, Naidupet, which was allotted to Smt.Y.Sridevi, F.P. Shop Dealer, Gurramkonda village was transported to the said rice mill. On the same day, the R.D.O. seized the entire stock. Thereafter, the Joint collector and E.O.E.D., Nellore, through his Proceedings dated 24-11-2001 placed the petitioner under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings initiated against her on the ground that though the Hamalies, who were refilling the bags at MLS Point, informed her at about 8.00 p.m. as to the fact of unloading of rice at the rice mill, she did not inform the same to superior officers and did not make entries in the stock registers of MLS point from 16-11-2001 to 22-11-2001. Questioning the said proceedings, she filed O.A.No.8890 of 2001 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The said O.A. was disposed of on 15-2-2002 directing the respondent-Corporation to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner and also complete enquiry within 3 months from the date of receipt of the Order. In the meanwhile, vide Proceedings dated 15-12-2001, the District Manager, Nellore appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore as Enquiry Officer. But, subsequently, the Joint Collector by Proceedings dated 1-1-2002 entrusted the enquiry to the Commissioner of Enquiries, General Administration Department, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Enquiries issued a charge sheet framing the following two charges: “1. That while working as MLS Point Incharge, she failed to make stock entries in Stock Register from 16-11-2001 to 22-11-2001. As per the Rules in vogue, stock entries in registers should be made everyday. Thus she showed negligence and dereliction in discharging her legitimate duties. 2. That while she was working as MLS Point Incharge, Naidupet, she has delivered 15.930 MTs of rice to the husband of Smt.Y.Sridevi, F.P.Shop Dealer of Gurramkonda Village in Ozili Mandal, which was sold to Sri T.V. Subrahmanyam, F.P. Shop Dealer of 1st ward, Naidupet and ultimately unloaded in a private rice mill. Though the fact was informed to her by Hamalies, she did not prevent the malpractices nor did she bring the fact to the notice of the higher authorities. Thus, she intentionally lifted the stocks to the unauthorized person and colluded with him in disposing of the stocks with an intent to misappropriate Government money.” Petitioner submitted her explanation on 9-4-2002 stating that she was handling heavy work load due to FFW Programme rice, she was handicapped due to insufficient staff to tackle the massive workload and though she did not write the stock register, she used to write other registers, such as truckwise register, issue register, D.D. Register etc. The Hamalies never informed her about unloading of FFW Rice. But, the Commissioner of Enquiries proceeded with the enquiry and submitted his report to the District Manager, Nellore stating that the two charges framed against her were proved. The District Manager, after receiving the said report from the Commissioner of Enquiries, forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent by his letter dated 11-11-2002. In pursuance of the said report, the 2nd respondent by Proceedings dated 23-12-2002 issued a show cause notice as to why a suitable punishment as per the CDR Regulations of the Corporation should not be imposed against her. After receipt of the said show cause notice, she submitted her explanation on 31-12-2002. In the meanwhile, by Proceedings dated 18-12-2002 she was reinstated into service and was posted as Accountant Grade I at District Manager’s Office, Ongole. While the matter stood thus, to her utter surprise, the petitioner received the Proceedings dated 20-1-2002 from the 2nd respondent, whereunder the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect was imposed, apart from ordering to recover a sum of Rs.3,54,000/- being double the cost of the stock seized, at Rs.2,950/- per month till the date of superannuation. Questioning the said Order, she filed O.A.No.1341 of 2003 before the Tribunal, but it was dismissed on 18-8-2004 holding that the same was not maintainable and an appeal under Regulation 35 of A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Staff Regulations is available before the Board of Directors. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal on 1-9- 2004. But the same was not disposed of and pending disposal of the appeal, the 4th respondent issued instructions to deduct the amounts from her salary with effect from August,2004 itself. Under those circumstances, she filed a Writ Petition being W.P.No.17648 of 2004 before this Court. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition on 30-9-2004 directing the respondents not to recover the amounts pending disposal of the appeal. On 3-4-2005, the 3rd respondent informed that he received the impugned Proceedings from the 1st respondent and also deducted an amount of Rs.3,475/- from her salary. From the perusal of the said Proceedings, it is noticed that the 1st respondent-Board in its 144th meeting held on 24-1-2005, approved the decision of the 2nd respondent and confirmed the award of punishment given to her. Hence, this Writ Petition. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed denying the allegations made by the petitioner. Inter alia it is stated that the petitioner allotted a quantity of 15.930 MTs of rice to an unauthorized person i.e. the husband of Gurramkonda village fair price shop dealer on 21-11-2001, without verifying the identity of the person properly and also in the absence of Route Officer and the fair price shop dealer. Further, it is not a case of diversion of rice far away from MLS Point, since the rice mill is located within a distance of 80 meters. The diversion of rice took place very much within the visible eye sight of the petitioner and the Hamalies have reported the matter, but the petitioner failed to report the same to the authorities for appropriate action. The R.D.O., Gudur found that a quantity of 15.930 MTs of FFW rice released from MLS Point, Naidupt by the petitioner to Gurramkonda village fair price shop dealer was diverted on the intervening night of 21/22-11- 2001 and unloaded in M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Rice, Flour and Decorticator Mill. Petitioner failed to inform the fact of diversion of rice to superior officers, i.e. District Manager and M.R.O., though she had received first hand information about diversion of rice from Hamalies working in MLS Point Godown around 8.00 p.m. on 21-11-2001. The Commissioner of Enquiries found that when the petitioner was able to maintain five registers out of 6 registers, she might have made entries in the 6th register i.e. stock register, but she has not done wilfully; thus, she has committed a procedural lapse and delivered rice to an unauthorized person. Petitioner could not convincingly defend her case. Thus, the charges were proved. The entire stock available in the rice mill was seized under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act,1955. The ‘Food For Work’ Programme has been envisaged by Government of Andhra Pradesh with a view to provide gainful employment to poorest of the poor in drought affected areas. The Scheme was introduced with the component of rice for execution of development works in the State. Government was very particular about implementation of this Scheme with a view to mitigate the sufferings of the poor people. The charges framed against the petitioner were proved and, therefore, she was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect, apart from ordering to recover double the value of diverted stock. The same was rightly affirmed by the appellate authority. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Heard both sides and perused the impugned Orders and other material made available on record. The facts are not much in dispute. It is a fact that the petitioner delivered 15.930 MTs of rice meant for Food For Work Programme to the husband of the fair price shop dealer of Gurramkonda village, Ozili Mandal, Nellore District on 21-11-2001. In fact, petitioner herself admitted that there was some rumour among the Hamalies that the stocks delivered to fair price shop dealer of Gurramkonda village were diverted to a nearby rice mill. She is not the authority to check and seize these stocks, even if they are diverted. Of course, she is supposed to inform to the superior officers, if there is any reliable information. Probably because it was only a rumour and by that time, it was about 8.00 p.m. and she was fatigue, she could not enquire into the matter and did not inform the higher authorities. But, it is a fact that at about 12.00 mid night on 21-11-2001, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur conducted a raid on M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Rice, Flour and Decorticator Mill, Naidupet and seized the stock of 15.930 MTs of rice, which was transported from MLS Point, Naidupet. Thereafter, the same was a subject matter of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and the stocks were confiscated to the State. However, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the ground that she did not inform about the diversion of rice to the higher authorities and thus she has suppressed the information and also delivered rice to an unauthorized person without there being a Route Officer accompanying the same. But, the fact that the Route Officer has to be appointed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and there was no Route Officer appointed with regard to Gurramkonda village, is not in dispute. May be, there was some lapse on the part of the petitioner in making a detailed enquiry by entertaining a doubt when a rumour was spread at about 8.00 p.m. Probably, petitioner being a lady and tired, did not evince much interest to enquire into such rumour and went home. But, she was proceeded with departmentally. May be, it can be said that there was some misconduct on her part in not informing to the higher authorities. But, why the penalty of recovery of double the value of the stocks seized was imposed against her is not known. Simply because there was some negligence on the part of the petitioner, the respondents ought not to have imposed the punishment of recovery of an amount of Rs.3,54,000/- In fact, the Commissioner of Enquiries submitted a report stating that though charge No.1 was proved, there was no shortage of rice as can be seen from the other records maintained by the petitioner. Further, insofar as charge No.2 is concerned, petitioner could not convincingly defend herself with regard to her failure to inform whatever information has come to her notice regarding unloading of rice at rice mill instead of at fair price shop, notwithstanding her plea that she is not responsible after rice leaves her godown. Hence, the charge was held to be proved, though no mala fi de intention was proved on the part of the petitioner. But, the Commissioner of Enquiries recommended for the punishment of ‘censure’. However, the 2nd respondent imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect and further sought for recovery of double the amount of stock seized. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the 2nd respondent was not right in ordering recovery of Rs.3,54,000/- being double the cost of the seized rice, while ordering stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. The recovery ordered is neither supported by any evidence of loss nor there is any mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner. In fact, the Commissioner of Enquiries has categorically stated that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner and further noticed that she may not be responsible after the rice leaves the godown; however, she could have passed on the information whatever she has received to the higher authorities. Admittedly, even according to the respondents as well as the petitioner, it was only rumour which had spread among the Hamalies at about 8.00 p.m. and there was no authentic information passed on to the petitioner. In fact, petitioner herself admitted that she over heard some rumour as to diversion of stocks. There was no authentic information even before the petitioner for being passed on to the higher authorities. Because of the alleged suppression of information by the petitioner, no loss is caused to the respondent-Corporation. In fact, as stated above, there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the punishment of recovery of Rs.3,54,000/- from the salary of the petitioner, apart from imposing the stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect, is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved. Therefore, the impugned Order passed by the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent-Board is liable to be modified and is modified to the effect that the petitioner shall be imposed with a punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect only. In the result, the impugned Order to the extent of ordering recovery of Rs.3,54,000/- is set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. No order as to costs. 18-3-2008 prk