HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION No. 5108 OF 2000 Thursday, the Twelfth Day of August, Two Thousand and Ten Between J.Sudha Ratnakar Petitioner AND The A.P. Beverages Corporation Ltd., Rep. By its Addl. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department & Director, H.No. 4-3-596, 6th Floor, Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Hyderabad and others Respondents ORAL ORDER: The Proceedings No.A4:68:96:1335 dated 7.3.2000 issued by the first respondent whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed in part directing that an amount of Rs.25,545.20 Ps. shall be recovered from the petitioner and the consequential proceedings No.APBCL/VIJ/PER/99-2000/2 dated 23.3.2000 effecting deduction of the said sum from the salary of the petitioner from the month of March, 2000 to March, 2001, are assailed in this writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager (Operations) in the year 1986 in the respondent Corporation. While working at Arrack Bottling Unit, Mahaboobnagar, to a Memo dated 3.5.1990, issued by the second respondent, as to the excess wastage beyond permissible limits during the period from January, 1989 to April 1989, the petitioner submitted an explanation. In culmination of the enquiry contemplated against the petitioner, he was awarded punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. While so, another show cause notice dated 23.8.1994 was issued to the petitioner proposing to recover the loss to the tune of Rs.25,548.20 caused to the Corporation and after enquiry, the petitioner was directed to make good the said amount. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chairman of the respondent Corporation, which was also dismissed by order dated 29.10.1999/16.11.1999. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed WP No.26170 of 1999 and this court, by order dated 22.12.1999 while setting aside the order impugned therein remitted the matter for consideration afresh by the Board of Directors with a specific direction that the Managing Director shall not participate in the said meeting when the appeal preferred by the petitioner is to be taken up for consideration by the Board of Directors. It was further directed that appropriate order shall be passed after affording opportunity to the petitioner. In terms of the said direction, by order dated 7.3.2000, the Board of Directors have passed the order partly allowing the appeal, holding that a second punishment cannot be imposed against the petitioner but he is liable for civil liability and thus ordered for the recovery of the loss to the tune of Rs. 25,545.20 Ps. caused to the Corporation due to process loss. The third respondent has consequently issued proceedings dated 23.3.2000 affecting recovery from the salary of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. The order dated 7.3.2000, passed by the Board of Directors make it clear that the excess wastage cannot be allowed in a particular month which can be compensated by a lesser wastage in another month. Thus the contention of the petitioner that the process loss should be worked out only on yearly basis in terms of the Circular No.D4:89:90-86 dated 5.6.1989, cannot be accepted. The impugned order has elaborately dealt with each and every contention raised by the petitioner. Having gone through the same, I do not find any reason to differ with the same. It is not in dispute that the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect, has become final. As can be seen from the record, notice before admission was ordered on 30.3.2000 but no interim order seeking suspension of the impugned order and the consequential proceeding of recovery, was granted. Therefore, the recovery of the amount, which had to commence from March, 2000 in terms of the consequential proceedings dated 23.3.2000 issued by the third respondent, had been completed by this time. For the foregoing reasons, I do not see any reason to entertain the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari August 12, 2010 MAS