IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 33855 of 2005(E) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.K. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. KELAN, AGED 54 YEARS, CONTROLLER OF RATIONING, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT MUTHANATTU HOUSE, KAITHAKODAM, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV.MR.C.K.PAVITHRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. T.K.VIPIN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.33855/2005 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.E8-14331/94(2) DTD. 12/07/1995. P2: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES NO.7171/A1/97/F&CSD DTD. NIL ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 15/08/1998 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.7171/A1/97 F& CSD DTD. 14/12/2000. P5: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 5/01/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.192/02/FCS & CAS DTD. 11/07/2002. P7: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DTD. 12/08/2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P8: COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.309/2005/FCS & CAD DTD. 20/09/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 33855 of 2005 - E --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who was working as Controller of Rationing in the Civil Supplies Department, has preferred this writ petition while he was in service, challenging Exts.P6 and P8 proceedings, ordering to recover amount from the petitioner to compensate the loss sustained due to the dereliction of duty and conduct of the petitioner on the basis of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. 2. The case of the petitioner is that while the petitioner was in the cadre of District Supply Officer, he was deputed to Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation at Thiruvananthapuram and posted as the Regional Manager. During his tenure as Regional Manager, he purchased various articles required for the super market and other outlets as per the intend submitted by the subordinate officers including the official in charge of the super market. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had granted approval for the purchase of the items in question on the basis of the intend submitted by the Manager of the super market and there was no dishonest WP(C) NO.33855 of 2005 :-2-: intention or dereliction of duty on his part. It is the further case of the petitioner that the articles, so purchased, were sold out subsequently and therefore, no loss is caused to the Department or the Government. Therefore, Exts.P6 and P8 are not factually and legally sustainable. 3. Against the above writ petition, a detailed counter affidavit is filed for and on behalf of the first respondent. According to the counter affidavit, when the petitioner was holding the post of Regional Manager, Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, the petitioner purchased shaving materials worth Rs.7,07,867/- from 14.5.1992 to 15.1.1993 and the said purchase was effected without giving due consideration of the movement of these items. According to the respondents, it resulted in the blockade of capital amounting to the tune of Rs.5,28,735/-. It is on the basis of the said lapse, a show cause notice was served on the petitioner and thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and proceeded against the petitioner. While passing Ext.P6 order, the Government ordered to recover only Rs.89,745/- which is equivalent to 50% of the interest loss to the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. According to the WP(C) NO.33855 of 2005 :-3-: calculation, the total loss is to the tune of Rs.1,79,490/-. But as per Ext.P6, it was ordered to recover Rs.89,745/-. Further, on review at the instance of the petitioner, the amount was again reduced to Rs.71,796/-. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Government has no authority or jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner when the alleged mis-conduct or dereliction of duty was occurred during the period of deputation. It is also brought to my notice that the actual loser is the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation and by issuing Ext.P1 proceedings, the Corporation has imposed the penalty of severe warning and therefore, no disciplinary proceedings are required and if the same is allowed, it will amount to double jeopardy. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the allegation, which is proved against the petitioner, is very serious and so, stringent punishment is required. It is the further case of the learned Government Pleader that though as WP(C) NO.33855 of 2005 :-4-: per Ext.P6, the amount ordered to recover was equal to 50% of the interest loss to the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, the revisional authority reduced the said amount again and now, ordered to recover only Rs.71,796/-. Thus, according to the Government Pleader, no interference of this Court is warranted. 7. I have considered the arguments raised by both counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was deputed while he was working in the cadre of District Supply Officer and he cannot keep away from the responsibility which reposed on him. Even though it is admitted that the purchase was effected on the basis of the invoice or intend provided by the Manager of the super market, being a superior officer, it is for the petitioner to ascertain the scope for sale of such articles and also such quantity. Regarding this aspect, there is complete failure on his part and therefore, it was in the above back ground, the Government passed an order Ext.P6, that there was lapse on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, it is crystal clear that due to the lapse on the part of the petitioner and since he had miserably WP(C) NO.33855 of 2005 :-5-: failed to discharge his duties effectively at appropriate time, the Corporation has to suffer the loss towards the blocking of capital. So, on merit, I am not proposed to interfere with the orders under challenge. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, by issuing Ext.P1 order, has decided to let off the petitioner with a severe warning on the ground that the only stock worth Rs.1,01,866.90 lies with the Corporation and this could be sold out if special effort was taken. Learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner has already retired from service and if such a huge amount is allowed to be recovered from the petitioner, it will adversely affect him substantially. Considering the above facts and circumstances, especially the petitioner has already been retired from service, though I am not proposed to interfere with the finding on merit of the case of the petitioner, I am of the view that the amount already fixed by Ext.P8 can be reduced and fixed as Rs.50,000/- and that will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of while confirming Exts.P6 and P8, but reducing the amount to the tune WP(C) NO.33855 of 2005 :-6-: of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) instead of Rs.71,796/- and the respondents are directed to recover the said amount from the D.C.R.G. of the petitioner and the balance amount of D.C.R.G. and other terminal benefits due to the petitioner are directed to be disbursed to him as early as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment which will be produced by the petitioner. V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ WP(C) NO.33855 of 2005 :-7-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P(C).NO. 33855 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T DATED: 5-6-2009 WP(C) NO.33855 of 2005 :-8-: