IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19202 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- S.RAMESHAN, S/O.SEKHARAN, ABKARI WORKER, FL-1 SHOP NO.02008(26) KOTTAMUKKU, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT UDAYAMANGALAM, CHITTAYAM, INCHAVILA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SASSTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED, WAREHOUSE, KARICODE, KOLLAM. 3. THE INTERNAL AUDITOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED, WAREHOUSE, KARICODE, KOLLAM. 4. JUSTIN RAJ, ABKARI WORKER, FL-1 SHOP NO.02008 (26) KOTTAMUKKU, KOLLAM. 5. SADANANDAN, ABKARI WORKER, FL-1 SHOP NO.02008 (26) KOTTAMUKKU, KOLLAM. 6. K.S.SHIBU, ABKARI WORKER, FL-1 SHOP LNO.02008 (26) KOTTAMUKKU, KOLLAM. 7. ABDUL MANAF, ABKARI WORKER, FL-1 SHOP NO.02008 (26) KOTTAMUKKU, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY,SC SRI.ELVIN PETER.P.J, SC,BEVERAGES CORPN SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI FOR R4 TO 7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO. 19202/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P1(b): THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P1(c): THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.KSBC/IA/AUDIT/2008- 09/-02008(26) DATED 24.4.2009. EXT.P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20.6.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 11.6.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 24.6.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXTS. OF R1 EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 16.3.2001 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19202 OF 2009 (U) ===================== Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the main challenge is against Ext.P2 notice calling upon the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.77,738/- and Ext.P4 memo . 2. The facts of the case are that petitioner was an abkari worker under the respondents. The 3rd respondent conducted an inspection and found shortage of stock worth Rs.3,36,378/-. Thereupon, Ext.P2 notice was issued to the petitioner and others, requiring him to remit Rs.77,738/-. To Ext.P2, he filed Ext.P3 objection. Thereupon Ext.P4 memo was issued proposing disciplinary action against the petitioner. To Ext.P4 memo, petitioner submitted Ext.P5 explanation. It was at that stage, the writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P2 and P4 and also for a declaration that respondents 4 to 7 who were also workers along with them should also be made liable and that their proportionate liability should be reduced. 3. However, statement has been filed by the respondent producing Ext.R1(a) circular dated 16.03.2001, which interalia WPC No. 19202/09 :2 : provides for apportionment of liability in case of shortage of stock in the following manner: Liability on account of shortage in liquor stocks will be recovered from the staff working in the FLI shop in the following proportion. Shop in Charge/Assistants : 50% LDC/UDC/Helpers : 50% ------- 100% 4. It is stated that respondents 4 to 7 were only daily waged workers, who were not entrusted with responsible duties and it was permanent employees like the petitioner who were discharging such responsible duties. It is stated that it was therefore that the Corporation has made permanent labours alone liable. 5. If as contended by respondents 1 to 3, respondents 4 to 7 being daily waged workers were not assigned responsible duties, which resulted in shortage of stock, Corporation cannot be faulted if they have decided not to make them liable. If that be the case, apportionment as reflected in Ext.P2 is consistent with Ext.R1(a), and in the absence of any challenge to Ext.R1(a), Ext.P2 cannot be faulted. WPC No. 19202/09 :3 : 6. In so far as Ext.P4 is concerned, Ext.P4 is only a memo calling upon the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action shall not be initiated, to which the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 explanation. Once memo is issued and an explanation is received, it is upto the disciplinary authority to decide what further action is to be taken. Therefore, at this stage, Ext.P4 cannot be taken as a prejudicial order to justify the challenge against Ext.P4 in a proceedings before this Court. Therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere either with Exts.P2 or P4. 7. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. According to the counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, a portion of the amount due from the petitioner had already been recovered, and therefore, it is needless to say that the recovery will be confined only to the balance outstanding amount. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp