HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.18914 OF 2010 Dated: 17.03.2011 Between: B.RANGASWAMY. ..... PETITIONER AND THE APSRTC REP BY ITS DY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER & OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.18914 OF 2010 ORDER: The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in imposing the penalty to an extent of Rs.12,000/- and recovering the same from him vide Debit Advice Receipt dated 17.3.2010 as illegal and arbitrary and voilative to Regulation 12 (1) of C.C.A Regulations and consequently, to direct the respondents to stop the recovery of Rs.12,000/- from him. Heard. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the respondents-Corporation on 14.4.1975 as Junior Assistant (Finance) in Nandyal Depot and thereafter, was transferred to Hyderabad, Kadapa Depot, Proddutur Depot, Pulivendula Depot, Kurnool Depot and finally transferred to Ananthapur Depot and he worked there as Accounts Officer without complaint from any corner. While so, the respondents issued the Debit Advice Notice dated 17.3.2010 to him on the ground that he failed to recover the furniture advance of Sri G.L.Prabhakar Reddy, Ex.Depot Manager, Kadapa Depot. It is his further case that the said Depot Manager retired on 31.7.2000 and though Debit Advice was issued in the year 1996, no action has been taken even after the retirement of the said Depot Manager and the said Depot Manager was allowed to retire without recovering the said amount of Rs.12,000/-. He also came to know that the 1st respondent instructed the 2nd respondent to request the concerned officer to remit Rs.12,000/- and in case the said concerned Officer fails to remit the same, action will be taken against the concerned staff only by fixing the responsibility to recover the outstanding balance. It is his further case that the 3rd respondent without following regulations and instructions of respondents-1 and 2 issued the order impugned herein without verifying the record. In response to the same, he made an application dated 19.3.2010 stating that he did not work in Kadapa Depot during the year 1996 and he worked as Kadapa Depot from 28.1.1997 to 11.8.1998 and after one year 7 months, he was transferred to the Accounts Office, Kadapa on administrative grounds and he worked for about 4 years at Accounts Office, Kadapa and again transferred to Kurnool Region and after lapse of 14 years, without issuing any memo or charge sheet and without any enquiry and without giving a reasonable opportunity, imposing the penalty recovery of Rs.12,000/- is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to Regulation 12 of C.C.A Regulations. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in no way concerned with the amount of Rs.12,000/-, which is said to be due from Sri G.L.Prabhakar Reddy, who retired long back as Depot Manager and apart from that, during the relevant period, he never worked in the Kadapa Depot and never dealt with the subject matter and therefore, he is not responsible for the amount in question. It is further submitted that after passing the order impugned, by appraising the facts, though the petitioner submitted his representation dated 19.3.2010 to the 2nd respondent to the effect that he is in no way responsible for the amount in question, but no action has yet been taken by the authorities. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation that aggrieved by the impugned letter whereby an amount of Rs.12,000/- has been sought to be withheld from the retiremental benefits of the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 19.3.2010 to the 2nd respondent and the same is pending and therefore, the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the submission made by the learned Standing counsel and in view of the pendency of the representation of the petitioner, dated 19.3.2010, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I feel it just and proper to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 19.3.2010 in accordance with law, particularly in the light of the facts and dispose of the same within a period of two (2) Weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. However, it is needless to observe that if any amount is withheld from the retiremental benefits of the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him forthwith in the event of finding by the authorities that the petitioner is not liable for such recovery in question. ______________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Dated: 17.03.2011 Gurc. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.18914 of 2010 Dated: 17.03.2011