IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.7114 of 2005 Between: 1 Union of India rep. by Sri. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, East Coast Railway, Waltair, Visakhapatnam-4, A.P. 2 Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer, East Coast Railway, Chandrasekhapur, Bhubaneswar, Orissa. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Sri Kota Rama Krishnarao, S/o. Late Appalaswamy, SSE(G) Carrage and Wagon, Central Sick Line, Marripalem, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam. 2 Sri G.S.Reddy, Asst. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, (Diesel), Waltair Diesel Loco Shed, Waltair, Visakhapatnam, ( Not a necessary party). .....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 a Writ order or direction particularly one in the natureof writ of certiorari in declaring the judgment dt. 21.12.2004 in O.A.No.772/04 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal of the Hyderabad Bench as bad, illegal, void and quash the same and pass suchother order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.CH.SUDHAKAR BABU The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.7114 of 2005 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu) Challenging the order in O.A.No.772/2004 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, dated 21.11.2004, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The 1st respondent herein filed O.A. to declare the order dated 26/28.02.2004 as illegal and arbitrary, and also sought consequential direction to respondents not to take any coercive steps. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: While the 1st respondent herein was working as Senior Section Engineer, a surprise check was conducted by the officials on the Stores for which the 1st respondent was incharge and custodian, in the presence of the 1st respondent, but the stock verification report was not furnished to him. Thereafter, he was directed to proceed to Angul on duty. While he was working at Angul, another surprise check was conducted on the Stores in his absence and the report of the officials who conducted the check has been communicated to the 1st respondent. A show cause notice was issued calling upon the 1st respondent herein for the alleged irregularities, for which the 1st respondent gave a reply. Thereupon, a special stock verification of the stores was ordered. The special stock verification was also conducted by the officials in the absence of the 1st respondent herein. Another show cause notice dated 20.10.2003 was issued, for which a suitable explanation was given by the 1st respondent. The 2nd petitioner herein, who is competent authority, has not taken any steps. Then the impugned order dated 26/28.06.2004 was issued to the 1st respondent, calling upon to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.19,76,226/-, the value towards the alleged shortages, could not be recovered from the salary of the 1st respondent herein, and further ordered that the 1st respondent herein was held responsible for the alleged irregularities and the action was proposed to be taken as per the Discipline & Appeal Rules 1968. Hence the 1st respondent herein filed the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, directed the petitioners herein to take steps for verification of stocks afresh ensuring the presence of the 1st respondent herein, enabling the 1st respondent herein to get an opportunity to defend his position vis-à-vis the shortages. Challenging the said order, the respondents in O.A.filed the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the question of fresh verification does not arise in view of the fact that the material stored do not exist at all and it is not open for the Tribunal to interfere with the charge memo, and the 1st respondent was present by the time of stock verification from 20.09.2003 to 24.09.2003, therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 6. The charge memo, dated 26/28.06.2004, consists of two parts; first aspect is that the 1st respondent was asked to show proper cause as to why an amount of Rs.19,76,226/- the value towards shortages/loss/misappropriation should not be recovered from his salary, and second aspect is that the 1st respondent was held responsible as a stock holder and action was proposed to be taken as per the Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1968. 7. So far as first aspect is concerned, it is only a show cause notice, for which the 1st respondent can as well give explanation for the same, therefore, it is premature to challenge the same. The next aspect is that the 1st respondent was held responsible for shortage of material and therefore action is proposed to be taken as per the Rules. 8. The only grievance of the 1st respondent herein is that the higher officials conducted the sudden check in his absence and they submitted a report to the higher officials and the said report has not been communicated to him. It is further alleged that the 1st petitioner herein bore grudge against the 1st respondent herein and instructed many officials to conduct sudden check of the stores, and all of a sudden the surprise checks were conducted by the higher officials. It is further case of the 1st respondent is that even for the stock verification, it has to be done for every two years, and in the year 2002 there was a stock verification, but a surprise check was conducted in the year 2003, in his absence. 9. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent seems to have given explanation for the irregularities alleged to have been pointed out by the stock verifiers and also produced documentary evidence to show that there was no shortage at all. The 2nd petitioner herein has to take appropriate action on the reply submitted by the 1st respondent. According to the 1st respondent herein, the impugned order is the final order, fixing the liability. The contention of the petitioners in the Tribunal is that there were no impugned proceedings and the impugned order was only a charge memo for which the 1st respondent has to submit explanation. It is admitted by the 1st respondent that he was not available at the time of stock verification, but the other Senior Section Engineers were present during the stock verification. Solely on the ground that stock verification was done in the absence of the 1st respondent herein, the Tribunal directed to conduct a fresh stock verification. 10. The stock verification was done in the year 2002-03. After lapse of more than one year, the 1st respondent herein filed the original application, challenging the impugned order, on the ground that the stock verification was not done in his presence. Therefore, at this point of time, re-verification of the stock in the presence of the 1st respondent herein may not serve any purpose, because the material in the stores were being used for day to day maintenance of the railways and no irregularities will be detected on re-verification of stocks, as the 1st respondent can take all precautions taking advantage of the order of the Tribunal. 11. Whether the 1st respondent committed any irregularities or was responsible for shortage of stocks as a custodian at the relevant point of time of the incident, and whether the surprise check was made in the absence of the 1st respondent or not, if so, to what extent of shortage was found, are the issues to be determined and decided basing on the material available. Ordering for fresh verification of stock, after lapse of two years, is totally unwarranted and unjustified, because the true picture will not come. Stocks would be varied from time to time because of its utilization. Therefore, quashing the charge memo at the threshold and ordering for re-verification of the stocks at a belated stage is not warranted, since the 1st respondent can as well give explanation to the charge memo. The impugned charge memo is not a final order, fixing the responsibility and to pay certain amount. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is not accordance with law, and it is liable to be set aside. 12. For the reasons stated supra, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside, and the Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. _____________________ D.S.R.VARMA,J ____________________________ K.C. BHANU, J Dated:22.04.2007 Dsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 2. 2CCs to 3. 2CD copies