WP/26827/2000 of B.Gopal Reddy, Vs A.P.Dairy Development Coop.Federation ltd., on 28 December 2012

ORDER:

Heard Smt.B.Geethanjali, the learned counsel appearingfor petitioner’s counsel and Sri M.Dilip Rao, the learned StandingCounsel for respondents.

2. The petitioner earlier worked as Field Supervisor and wasalso In-charge Store Keeper of Milk Chilling Centre, Shadnagar ofMahabubnagar Milkshed which is under the control of the firstrespondent Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development CorporationFederation Limited (APDDCFL). The second respondent is theChairman of the first respondent organisation.

3. A disciplinary enquiry was commenced against the petitioner on the following charges.

“1. that the can account register has not been maintainedsystematically and there are no proper entries, at MCC,Sahadnagar.

2. that Sri S.N.Shaw Harooni, then Manager recordedthat 156 AA cans and 367 lids found short and recordedunder his signature on 26.06.1993 and the said noting hasalso been signed by delinquent Sri B.Gopal Reddy.

3. that there is final shortage and missing of 132 AA cansand 167 can lids, as arrived in the enquiry during histenure.

4. that the contention of Sri B.Gopal Reddy, FieldSupervisor (rtd.), to provide security and transport to traceout the missing cans and can lids is not justified andcorrect, as the shortage of Federation property wasnoticed well before his handing over the stocks to SriB.Krishna Reddy, his successor.

5. that the delinquent has neglected his responsibility andtried to throw the blame on others and it is an after through plan to escape from the responsibility.

6. that in the absence of his efforts to trace back themissing cans has lead to the conclusion that Sri B.GopalReddy, Field Supervisor (Rtd.) is responsible for suchshortage of cans 132 Nos. and 167 Nos. can lids.

4. The above disciplinary proceedings were initiated by theProject Director of the first respondent. An enquiry officer wasappointed and after conducting the enquiry, he submitted hisreport dated 23.12.1997. The disciplinary authority i.e. theProject Director of the first respondent after considering theenquiry report and after issuing necessary show cause noticeshas by his order dated 15.03.2000 agreed with the finding of theenquiry officer and found that the petitioner is responsible forshortage of 132 cans and 167 can lids. After calculating theirvalue at Rs.1,36,619.60 ps., he found that the petitioner is liablefor payment of the same.

5. It may be noted that the enquiry report would read that thepetitioner was responsible for the loss of the above property ofthe first respondent. It is clear that as the petitioner was anemployee of the first respondent, it was held that he was liable tomake good the said loss. Accordingly, the Project Director of thefirst respondent by his order dated 15.03.2000 held that thepetitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,36,619.60 ps. to the firstrespondent and after adjusting the group gratuity amount ofRs.1,22,627/- payable to the petitioner, he concluded that stillthere a balance of Rs.13,992.60 ps. and that has to be recoveredfrom the petitioner. It is questioning this order, the petitioner hasfiled this writ petition.

6. The first contention of the petitioner is that he was not

responsible for the loss and the enquiry was also not properlyheld and the evidence gathered is not sufficient to sustain thecharges. The petitioner himself filed a copy of the enquiry reportdated 23.12.1997. A perusal of the said report would show thatthe petitioner was given ample opportunity even to trace out themissing cans and can lids, but he was not able to trace them outand it was also specifically found that the above shortage wasnoticed when the petitioner himself handed over charge to oneB.Krishna Reddy, another Store Keeper. The enquiry officergave sufficient reasons to hold that the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority also, as disclosed from the impugnedorder, considered all the aspects in the matter and concluded thatthe petitioner was responsible for the aforesaid loss. Since it isthe property of the first respondent, it follows that it is open forthe first respondent and its officials to recover the above lossfrom the petitioner. The petitioner did not mention any lack ofauthority of the respondents for recovering the said loss fromhim.

7. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there areno merits in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Nocosts.

_____________________

N.RAVI SHANKAR, J

28[th] December, 2012TJMR

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

WRIT PETITION NO.26827 OF 2000

Date: 28[th] December, 2012