IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 18560 of 2000 BETWEEN: Yarlagadda Bhaskara Rao, S/o Late Koteswara Rao, Southern Street, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Administrative Buildings, R.T.C. Cross Road, Hyderabad- 20. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Eluru Depot, Eluru, West Godavari District. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction ,ore particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings, APSRTC No.M1/377(01)/96-ELR dated 30-12-1999 and the modified proceedings issued vide letter No.M1/377(01)/99-ELR dated 20-5-2000 asking the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.13, 219.10Ps. and deducting the said amount from the retirement benefits of the petitioner are absolutely illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, erroneous and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release the amount of Rs.13,219.10ps. forthwith interest @ 24% per annum and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.Y.V.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents : C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner has worked as a Depot Clerk (Maintenance) (Tools & Plants) in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and was attached to Eluru Depot. He retired from service on 30th June 1999 on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, the respondent-Corporation has issued charge memos against him in Proceedings No. M1/377/(01)/98-ELR, dated 30.12.1999, and in Proceedings No.M1/ 377(01)/1999-ELR, dated 20.05.2000, ordering to recover an amount of Rs.43,338.25 ps. from his retirement benefits. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to declare such action of respondents as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had retired from the service of the respondent-Corporation on 30.06.1999, as a Depot Clerk, on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, making him responsible for shortage of some tools and plant items during his tenure as a Depot Clerk, the respondents have issued a show cause notice to him vide Proceedings No.M1/377(1)/96-ELR, dated 21.09.1999, asking him to explain as to why an amount of Rs.43,338.25 ps., should not be recovered from his retirement benefits, towards the cost of said tools and plant items found short. The list of such articles was also enclosed with the show cause notice. 3. The petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation to the above said show cause notice, on 01.10.1999, stating that he was not responsible for the loss of said articles as he was not the sole incharge of the same. He stated that the Security Wing of the Corporation was incharge of such items and in view of his limited working hours, he cannot be made responsible for such loss. In his explanation, he further stated that though he was making complaints about the missing articles during his service, no action was taken at any point of time, and the list of missing articles was also prepared basing only on his complaint. 4. Thereafter, the impugned proceedings were initiated, proposing to recover certain amounts from the petitioner towards the cost of missing tools and plant items. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned proceedings were issued contrary to the Regulations, without conducting any inquiry into the matter and also without considering the explanation submitted by him. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent- Corporation, apart from generally denying various allegations made by the petitioner, a reference is made to the charge memo, dated 27.05.1997, wherein, it was stated that due to latches on the part of the petitioner, a shortage of 22 items of tools and plants was pointed out in the internal audit, and after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge memo, orders were passed for recovery of amount in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (for short ‘the Regulations’), framed under Section 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. 6. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 7. A perusal of the material on record shows, for the show cause notice dated 21.09.1999, the petitioner has filed his detailed explanation on 01.10.1999, disputing his liability, and has also questioned the authority of the Corporation in passing such orders after his retirement from service. It is submitted that inspite of the same, the impugned orders have been passed, imposing the liability, without recording any valid reasons. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation has submitted that since the shortage of tools is due to misconduct of the petitioner during his tenure as a Depot Clerk, the Corporation has got powers to recover the said amount from him as per Regulations 8 and 12. 8. Regulation 8(v) of the Regulations provide for imposing penalty of recovery from the pay of the employee, the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation due to negligence of such employee or due to breach of orders by him. But however, in the present case, though the petitioner has submitted the detailed explanation denying his liability, without taking the same into consideration and even without conducting any inquiry, the respondents have recovered the amount from his retirement benefits, which is contrary to the provisions contained under Regulation 12 of the Regulations. As per Regulation 12, even for recovery of penalty imposed under Regulation 8(v), a regular inquiry has to be conducted and a specific finding has to be arrived at. In his explanation, the petitioner has categorically stated that the security wing was incharge of tools and plant items and in view of the limited working hours of his duty, he cannot be held liable for loss of such items. Inspite of such specific denial, no inquiry was conducted into the matter before ordering for recovery of amount from the retirement benefits of the petitioner. Further, it is also to be noticed that the petitioner was allowed to retire unconditionally on his attaining the age of superannuation and the Corporation has also failed to bring to the notice of this Court, any provision which empowers them to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee and pass an order of recovery. In that view of the matter, recovery of amount made from out of the retirement benefits of the petitioner, is illegal and arbitrary. 9. Though the petitioner seeks directions for refund of amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum as he was deprived of the same for the last about eight years, but taking into consideration the nature of allegations made against him and the rates of interest prevailing in the Nationalised banks at the relevant point of time, I deem it appropriate to quash the orders passed in Proceedings No.M1/377(01)/98-ELR, dated 30.12.1999 and in Proceedings No.M1/377(01)/1999-ELR, dated 20.05.2000, and direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner, the entire amount recovered from out of his retirement benefits, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of such recovery till the date of payment. Such payment shall be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd November 2008 cvrk/ajr