Uttarakhand High Court
Umesh Kumar Tyagi vs U.P.State Ware Housing Corporation And ... on 26 August, 2015
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
WPSS No. 1750 of 2015 Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Mr. V.D. Bisen, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S.C. Dumka, Advocate holding brief of Mr. A.K. Arya, Advocate for the respondents.
Petitioner Mr. Umesh Kumar Tyagi is a Senior Warehouse Superintendent and he is employed with the respondent no.1-U.P. State Ware Housing Corporation.
During the year commencing from 2000-01 to 2005-06, he remained the in-charge of storage of rice and other grains. These grains are kept stored by the respondent no.1 on behalf of Department of Food and Civil Supply of the State, wherefor the latter pays rent to respondent no.1.
For the said lock up period, Food and Civil Supply Department found that the grains/rice, received back from the respondent no.1, was lesser than it was entrusted for preservation, and such loss of grains is valued to the tune of Rs.63,82,115/-. Such amount has been deducted from the rent, which is proposed to be paid by the Food and Civil Supply Department to the Ware Housing Corporation.
Since, the petitioner Mr. Umesh Kumar Tyagi was the Superintendent of entire storage, hence, the respondent no.1 prima facie found the petitioner responsible for the loss and thereafter, set up an enquiry against him.
Such enquiry was conducted after levelling charge by the Enquiry Officer Mr. P.K. Mishra, Principal General Manager (Audit and P.V) and then, responsibility to the tune of Rs.8,25,315/- was attributed against the petitioner. Such amount is to be recovered from the petitioner.
Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has submitted that petitioner is going to retire in very near future and the respondent no.1-Ware Housing Corporation has no other means to recover this amount from the petitioner because in case of his superannuation, this amount cannot be recovered from the pension, gratuity or GPF and the only means remains to recover the same is from the salary of the petitioner.
The Court does not find any fault in the recovery, initiated by the respondent nos.1 and 2 against the petitioner and nor it finds any scope to interfere with the same.
This petition is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed at the threshold.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 26.08.2015 Nadim