Madras High Court
M.D.Venugopal vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director on 9 April, 2014
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CAV ON 10/01/2013 DATED: 09/04/2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN W.P.No.6950 of 2002 M.D.Venugopal ... Petitioner vs. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation, No.100, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 032. ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent relating to his order in R.C.No.5389/01/A7, dated 06.10.2001, and to quash the same and to direct the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 31.07.1993 to 13.08.2001 on the terminal benefits of Rs.2,03,947.00. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Krishnasamy For Respondent : Mr.S.A.Hafiz * * * * * O R D E R
The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order, dated 06.10.2001, passed by the respondent and to direct the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 31.07.1993 to 13.08.2001 on the terminal benefits of Rs.2,03,947.00.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner submits that he worked as Warehouse Manager Grade-I in the respondent Corporation and he discharged his duties to the best of his abilities. When he was working at Maduranthagam, on 14.07.1993, the respondent at the instigation of his enemies, placed the petitioner under suspension, on the ground that grave charges are being framed against him for the alleged disorderly behavior and use of abusive language against the Executive of the respondent Corporation and passed another order directing one Lakshmipathy, Deputy Warehousing Manager, Maduranthagam, to take charge from him. In view of that, he was suspended and he handed over charge to the Deputy Warehousing Manager.
3. Further, the petitioner submits that he was to be retired on 31.07.1993, which was the date of his superannuation and the respondent, by order dated 30.07.1993, allowed him to retire on the afternoon of 31.07.1993 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. But, on the same day, the respondent issued a charge memo against him containing two charges, even though he was suspended on 14.07.1993 for a single charge. The respondent with a view to avoid payment of terminal benefits payable to him, acted mala fide, illegally and arbitrarily with a sole object of harassing him. The respondent falsely and illegally included charge No.2 that the petitioner had caused storage loss to the tune of Rs.1,75,150.25 to the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation due to his alleged carelessness, negligence and inefficient maintenance of warehouse at Polur, based on the Note, dated 20.07.1993 of the Assistant General Manager (Technical). He was called upon to explain within 15 days of the said charge memo as to why a suitable punishment under Regulation 12 of the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation General and Staff Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter, called as 'the Regulations') should not be imposed. The said charge memo is ex facie and illegal in the sense that the explanation called for to straightaway issue punishment, which itself shows the prejudged notion of the respondent. The alleged storage loss was for the periods between 19.10.1983 to 25.02.1984; 07.05.1984 to 30.06.1984 and 13.06.1985 to 29.09.1986. There was no reason assigned as to why it was invented at the last date of his retirement and why no action was taken till then. By yet another order of the same date, the suspension order inflicted upon him on 14.07.1993 was revoked with immediate effect by the respondent. By another order on the same date, he was reinstated and posted as Warehouse Manager at Maduranthagam Warehouse vide one Packianathan and the posting of Packianathan would be issued separately. By a separate order on the same date, namely, on 30.07.1993, the said Packianathan was instructed to take charge from him and to relieve him on the afternoon of 31.07.1993. These sequence of orders of the respondent would show his malafide attitude towards him and all the said orders are illegal and arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
4. The petitioner further submits that he gave explanation on 14.08.1993 denying the charges levelled against him. But, the respondent, by order, dated 25.08.1993, appointed one Venkatakrishnan, Manager (I & T) as an Enquiry Officer in this case. The Enquiry Officer, by letter dated 03.09.1993, called upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 13.09.1993 at 11.00 a.m., and to bring filled up annexure with him. The said enquiry was adjourned to 20.09.1993. He attended the enquiry on 20.09.1993. Again he was directed to appear for an enquiry on 10.11.1993 to examine certain witnesses in his presence. It seems that the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report and the same was received by the respondent on 23.05.1994. Based on the said report, the respondent passed final orders, on 21.06.1994, holding that the first charge was not proved and so dropped and with regard to the second charge, he held that he was responsible for the storage loss and on discussion with TNCSC, the amount recoverable will be finalized. The said order is illegal and against the specific provisions of the Regulations. The enquiry report was not at all furnished to him and explanation for the enquiry report was also not called for from him. With regard to the first charge, it was proved beyond doubt that the statements were forcibly obtained against him from the other staffs, who admitted the same before the Enquiry Officer. It would clinch the issue and it would be sufficient to establish that he is an innocent person and false charges were framed against him. The respondent should have taken severe action against one Shanmugasigamani, the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent Corporation, who collected such statements by force from the co-staffs and it is evidently clear that the Government Department was not functioning in the Manager expected to function. Subsequently, orders were passed that the period between 14.07.1993 to 30.07.1993 was treated as on duty and his pay was fixed on par with his junior Mariappan etc., but not his terminal benefits. He sent several representations, dated 14.08.1994, 21.10.1996, 10.02.1998, 20.03.1998 to the respondent and all his representations were duly sent by RPAD, but his terminal benefits were not settled. Therefore, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8545 of 2001 to direct the respondent to settle his terminal benefits by disposing his various representations including the last representation, dated 20.03.1998 and this Court, by order dated 26.04.2001, directed the respondent to dispose of his representations within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, after giving him personal opportunity of being heard.
5. Further, the petitioner submits that on 10.06.2001, he made a representation to the respondent along with the order made in W.P.No.8545 of 2001, dated 26.04.2001. A meeting was held on 18.07.2001 at 02.00 p.m., in the office of the respondent and he attended the said meeting. He specifically requested the respondent to settle his terminal benefits along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of his superannuation, namely, 31.07.1993. The respondent passed an order, dated 06.08.2001, and finalized his terminal benefits at Rs.2,03,947.00 as per the details given as follows:
1. Gratuity Rs. 62,087.00
2. EPF (i) Subscription Rs. 16,251.00
(ii) Contribution Rs.1,25,797.00
3. Encashment of Earned leave Rs. 24,994.00
-----------------------
Total Rs.2,29,129.00
-----------------------
LESS:
(i) Amount ordered to be withheld towards storage loss liabilities Rs.23,125.00
(ii) Amount ordered to be recovered as per Pro.Rc.3675/93/E1 dated 07.09.1993 Rs. 2,056.00 or Rs. 2,057.00
--------------------
Rs.25,182.00
--------------------
Rs. 25,182.00
-----------------------
Net amount payable Rs.2,03,947.00
-----------------------
6. Further, the petitioner submits that he was called upon to give an undertaking to the effect that in case any claim/recovery order, if any, received at a later date from the depositor like T.N.C.S.C.Ltd., and F.C.I. etc., for the storage losses occurred and if any recovery is finalized against him, the storage loss amount proportionate to his period of service in the warehouses would have to be made good by him or he has to remit the amount into Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation account. The respondent committed a very grave error in passing the said order. He has not stated how the gratuity amount was arrived at. The deduction for the alleged storage loss and other deduction are illegal and arbitrary and the respondent has not assigned any reasons for such deductions and no show-cause notice and explanation were called for from him before making such deduction.
7. The petitioner further submits that the respondent erred in fixing a storage loss of Rs.23,125.00 and made a recovery of Rs.2,057.00 without assigning any reason. He had also failed to state how he arrived at the gratuity amount of Rs.62,087/-. The further order that he should give an undertaking to deposit if any recovery is made is illegal and arbitrary. He has received a cheque for Rs.1,64,621.00 on 13.08.2001, from the respondent towards E.P.F., subscription and E.P.F., contribution, after giving such undertaking. Similarly, he has also received F.D.R., deposit for Rs.7,344/- which would mature on 02.04.2003. He has received a cheque, dated 13.08.2001, for Rs.36,905/- towards the gratuity settlement. The respondent has also paid the leave travel concession, which was directed to be recovered under order, dated 06.08.2001. For the settlement of terminal benefits belatedly, after eight years, he demanded interest in all his letters, dated 19.04.1994 and 26.02.2001 and also during the personal meeting, dated 18.07.2001, but nothing was provided and mentioned in the order, dated 06.08.2001 to the respondent and called upon to pay interest on the terminal benefits, namely, gratuity amount, loss of salary amount, E.P.F., arrears of pay and allowances on re-fixation of pay, after the date of his retirement on 31.07.1993. The respondent has passed an order, dated 06.10.2001, and denied his claim of interest. He has stated that his case was considered on humanitarian basis and storage loss was reduced from Rs.1.75 lakhs and a remission of Rs.98,000/- was made before arriving at a gratuity amount of Rs.62,087.00 and before to that no amount of gratuity was payable to him. He further stated that after deducting the storage loss of Rs.23,125/- + Rs.2,054/- towards LTC from Rs.62,087.00, the gratuity amount of Rs.36,905/- was arrived at and the same was paid to him. The respondent conveniently failed to state as to how the storage loss of Rs.1.75 lakhs was arrived and on what basis he reduced it into Rs.23,125/-. He has also failed to state what his correct due of gratuity amount was and how he has arrived at the said amount. Therefore, he has sent several letters to the respondent, dated 19.10.2001, 28.10.2001, 01.11.2001 and called upon the respondent to pay interest on his terminal benefits. But, the respondent has not responded properly. Hence, he has filed this writ petition seeking the relief as stated above.
8. The respondent has filed his counter affidavit stating that based on the letter, dated 14.07.1993, sent by one K.Venkataraman, the then Warehouse Manager, Madras Warehouse, the petitioner was suspended from service for his disorderly behavior and charges were framed against him based on the preliminary enquiry report, dated 30.07.1993, of Assistant General Manager (Technical) that he had used contemptuous and disparaging remarks against the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the Chief Executive of the respondent Corporation and also storage loss of stocks occurred to the tune of Rs.1,75,150.25 due to his carelessness, negligence and improper maintenance of food grain stocks during his tenure at Polur Warehouse, vide proceedings dated 30.07.1993.
9. Further, he submits that according to Rule 17(c)(6) of TNCS (D&A) Rules, an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under the Rule may at any time be revoked by the authority, which made or to have been made the orders or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate. As per the rules, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 30.07.1993 and posted as Warehouse Manager at Madurantakam Warehouse. The petitioner was relieved on the afternoon of 31.07.1993 and allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation with instruction to hand over charge to I.Packiyanathan and hence there is no mala fide, illegal intention in his action in as much as the same was in accordance with the administrative formalities and procedures. One Venkatakrishnan, the then Assistant General Manager was appointed as enquiry officer and he has sent notice to the petitioner to appear before him on 13.09.1993 for filing the questionnaire form for enquiry. But, the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer and hence another date was fixed on 20.09.1993 for his appearance for enquiry and then he was asked to fill up the questionnaire form to defend his case and cross-examine the witnesses. The petitioner refused to do so saying that he was already warned by some means or other by Chairman-cum-Managing Director and he did not wish to appear before the Enquiry Officer for cross-examination of the witnesses in his presence. Again an opportunity was given to him to appear on 10.11.1993 for enquiry, but the petitioner did not attend the enquiry. Again another final date 19.05.1994 was fixed and enquiry was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and only thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report and based on the enquiry report, final order was passed by the authority concerned.
10. The respondent further submits that with regard to the second charge, the Enquiry Officer reported that he examined the storage loss register of Polur Warehouse and it was found that for many cases the depositor regularized the storage loss on paddy stocks leaving behind abnormal losses for recovery that is taking into consideration of regularizing of storage loss applicable up to G.O.Norms or Thume rule and beyond that the depositor has levied recovery orders that has accumulated to the extent of Rs.1,75,125.25, which remains unsettled to the depositor and that proves that the petitioner is responsible for such storage loss of paddy stocks of TNCSC. Hence, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director has ordered that the individual is responsible for the storage loss of paddy stocks and that on discussion with TNCSC, the amount recoverable will be finalized. Further, the petitioner has also not preferred any appeal to Executive Committee against the order of the respondent as per regulations. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. As per the charge memo, dated 30.07.1993, two charges were framed under 14(2) of TNWC General and Staff Regulations, 1965 against the petitioner, who was the then Warehouse Manager, at Madurantakam, and who had retired from service. As per the proceedings, dated 21.06.1994, after completion of enquiry, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director carefully examined the explanation, enquiry report and connected records and ordered dropping of Charge-1 as not held proved. Regarding the Charge No.II, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director ordered that the individual was responsible for the storage loss and the amount recoverable will be finalized, on discussion with TNCSC.
11. Further, the respondent submits that as per the proceedings, dated 01.07.1994, it was ordered that the period of suspension undergone by the petitioner from 14.07.1993 to 30.07.1993 be treated as duty. Since depositor M/s.TNCSC Limited has not regularized, the storage loss for high moisture paddy stocks and no decision could be arrived by the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation to release the terminal benefits payable to staff for the excess over norms of storage loss amounts withheld from all staff. After the waiver order by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director on 18.07.2001 for M/s.TNCSC Limited, high moisture paddy stocks, the withheld amount was released to the petitioner. This decision was taken after the payment of 50% claimed amount to TNCSC Limited as per Board decision. Till such time, there was liability against the petitioner. So as per the contention of the petitioner, delay in payment was not an illegal one and the same is vehemently denied. Though the period between 14.07.1993 to 30.07.1993 were subsequently regularized the terminal benefits were not settled as there were heavy storage loss liability against the petitioner. If there was no liability against him, the terminal benefits, would have been settled immediately at the time of his superannuation. It was only when this Court directed the respondent to give an opportunity for personal hearing to the former employee being the petitioner, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director has given the date for personal hearing on 18.07.2001 at 02.00 p.m. During the meeting, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director took up the entire storage loss issue afresh and on humanitarian consideration, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director has issued waiver orders for the storage losses on high moisture paddy stocks pertaining to TNCSC. Till the date of issuance of waiver orders by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director on 18.07.2001, the petitioner was having storage loss liability over and above the terminal benefits payable to him since depositor TNCSC has not regularized the storage losses. Therefore, it is crystal clear that there was liability against him over and above his terminal benefit till the date and time of the personal hearing of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director on 18.07.2001 and the storage loss liability was downsized only on the date of the personal hearing. His terminal benefits were settled to him within one month from the date of personal hearing/waiver orders of Chairman-cum-Managing Director on 18.07.2001. After withholding the downsized storage loss liability, the payment was released to him on 13.08.2001 and the same was accepted by the petitioner also.
12. The respondent further submits that as per the direction of this Court, a personal hearing was arranged between Chairman-cum-Managing Director's and the former employee on 18.07.2001 at 2 p.m. in the Chairman cum Managing Director's Chambers. The retired employee requested to settle all his terminal benefits with 18% interest from the date of his retirement i.e., from 31.07.1993. Immediately, after the personal hearing, his terminal benefits were finalized after the waiver of the storage loss liability on high moisture paddy deposited by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. The terminal benefits were paid to him on 13.08.2001 as follows:
1.
Gratuity 62,087.00
2. EPF i.Subscription ii.Contribution 16,251.00 1,25,797.00
3. Encashment of E.L. 24,994.00 2,29,129.00 i Less Amount ordered to be withheld towards storage loss 23,125.00 ii Amount to be recovered as per 3675/93/E1, dated 07.09.1993 (LTC) 2,06,004.00 2,057.00 Balance amount paid 2,03,947.00
13. The respondent further submits that while settling the amount, the petitioner was asked to give an undertaking, which is the normal practice in the Corporation that the storage loss liabilities recovery orders, if any, received at a later date from the depositors viz., TNCSC/FCI pertaining to his service period, in the concerned warehouse, would have to be made good by him or he has to remit the amount into TNWC account. Since TNCSC/FCI depositors have not regularized their storage losses fully, the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation had to obtain an undertaking from the petitioner as is being done with other staff that if any recovery is finalized for storage losses occurred, the storage losses amount proportionate to employee for his service periods in the warehouse would have to be made good by the employee or he should remit the amount into Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation account, while releasing the terminal benefits. As the gratuity payable to the petitioner had already been worked out, the amount arrived at was simply adopted as the payable gratuity amount. Whenever the amount of liability applicable to him had been deducted by the depositors towards storage loss liability, the proportionate liability applicable to him would be worked out and deducted towards his storage loss liability, because of which the Corporation had to suffer humility, in the eyes of the depositors. As the payment was released to the petitioner immediately, after the personal hearing on 18.07.2001 there was no need to issue show-cause notice to the individual. The deduction for TNCSC Limited and FCI Storage losses from the petitioner's terminal benefit will be released only after the regularizations of excess over losses on norms by the depositors. Till such time, the above individual is having liability for the storage losses. As per Head Office proceedings, dated 21.06.1994, charges were framed that the petitioner was in-charge of Polur warehouse and that by his carelessness and negligence and by his inefficient maintenance of warehouse at Polur Warehouse, storage loss to the tune of Rs.1,75,125.25 in 115 stacks of paddy deposited by TNCSC Limited was noticed and thereby caused loss of the said sum to the respondent Corporation. As he had already received charge memo from Chairman-cum-Managing Director for storage losses, there is no question to inform the petitioner separately for deduction. The petitioner had been shown the recovery details fully and he was fully aware of the same.
14. Further, the respondent submits that the reason for deduction of Rs.2,057/- was informed to the petitioner during the personal hearing with the Chairman-cum-Managing Director to the effect that the LTC sanctioned to him was not correct and hence it would not be allowed and passed to him. The gratuity of Rs.62,087/- had been worked out properly and he was informed about this. The details of workings are as follows:
Date of Birth : 16.09.1935 Date of Joining : 10.07.1970 Date of regularization : 13.02.1971 Date of relief from Corporation : 31.07.1993 E.O.L. : 189 days Period not regularized : Nil Gross qualifying services : Y M D 23 0 22 Net qualifying services : 22 6 13 Gratuity payable : B.P. + D.A. X 15/26 X NQs 2375 + 2304 X 15 x 23 /16 62,087/-
As the petitioner's liability cannot be passed on to the organization, it is the normal practice of the Corporation to get an undertaking from all the individuals that they should make good such of the losses as finalized against them at a later date. Likewise, the petitioner was asked to give the undertaking. Even in this case, the petitioner did not stick to the format prescribed by the Corporation. As all the payments had been released to him within a month from the date on which the liability has come down and they become payable to him i.e., within one month from 18.07.2001, there was no delay and hence, no amount of interest for the so called belated payment is payable to him. The petitioner was also informed vide letter, dated 06.10.2001, that in view of settlement of the terminal benefit within a month from the date of it's becoming due, there was no question of payment of interest for the alleged belated payment.
15. The respondent further submits that he received representation from the petitioner for the payment of interest for the alleged belated payment. After due verification of records, the individual was given a reply for his representations, vide letter dated 06.10.2001, that all TNCSC paddy storage losses withheld amount has been released to the petitioner as per CMD's order like other staff of Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation. On the date of settlement of his terminal benefits only a sum of Rs.23,125/- was withheld towards storage loss. Even this amount was later released to him in view of subsequent regularization by the depositors and now only a sum of Rs.3,678/- is withheld by the respondent Corporation. The petitioner himself admitted that the recoveries are made for storage losses. Since FCI has regularized certain storage losses for Kancheepuram Warehouse, the respondent Corporation has released the withheld amount according to the realization of amount as stated above. At present the total withheld amount is Rs.3,678/- and not as stated by the petitioner in his affidavit and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.
Sl.No. Depositor Withheld Amount (in Rupees)
1. FCI Kancheepuram (Rice Stocks) 3,656.00
2. TNCSC Ltd., Claim (R.Rice Stocks), Alangudi Warehouse 21.40 Total 3,677.40 or 3,678.00
16. Further, the respondent submits that as soon as decision was taken to waive the petitioner's storage loss liability, a portion of the terminal benefits become payable to him and it was paid to him within one month from the date of such decision. Hence, there occurred no delay and the question of payment of interest does not arise. As per the finding of the Enquiry Officer, for Charge No.2, the storage loss to the tune of Rs.1,75,125.25 have been arrived for 115 stacks of paddy belongs to TNCSC Limited Paddy stored in Polur Warehouse. TNCSC have stored paddy stocks of different varieties like common, fine and superfine, the storage loss sustained in all the above varieties of paddy during the tenure of the petitioner, who was holding charge of Polur Warehouse are recorded in the storage loss registers. He reiterated and stated that the Enquiry Officer has stated that when examining the storage loss register of Polur Warehouse, it is found that in many cases the depositor has regularized the storage loss on paddy stocks, leaving behind abnormal losses for recovery that is taking into consideration of regularizing of storage loss applicable. Beyond that the depositor has levied recovery orders that was accumulated to the extent of Rs.1,75,125.25, which remains unsettled by the depositor and proves that the petitioner is held responsible for the storage loss of paddy stocks of TNCSC Limited at Polur Warehouse during his tenure as Warehouse Manager. This was brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority by Technical Section that there are certain storage loses against the petitioner relating to TNCSC Limited paddy stocks stored at Polur Warehouse in which the storage losses had exceeded the norms prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.235, Food Department, dated 05.03.1969. The value of storage loss exceeding G.O.Norms for his proportionate period of service is Rs.1,75,125.25 and that they have pursued action with TNCSC Limited to regularize the storage losses for above 473 stacks and reply from TNCSC Limited are yet to be received. Usually at the verge of retirement, of an employee on the basis of the remarks obtained from various sections the settlement of terminal benefits to the retired persons is being finalized. In the case of the petitioner, on basis of the remarks of Technical Section with regard to storage losses charges were framed against the petitioner.
17. The respondent further submits that prior to the retirement of the petitioner, disciplinary action was initiated against him and the petitioner was allowed to retire on 31.07.1993 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him and then on the completion of enquiry process, the final orders were issued vide proceedings, dated 21.06.1994, which is to avoid delay in settlement of terminal benefits to the individual on account of pending charges. But, the delay in settlement was only due to the regularization of storage loss by TNCSC Limited, the depositor. Though the individual was allowed to retire from his services on 31.07.1993 afternoon, he was not relieved from the storage loss liability of Rs.1,75,125.25. On the date of his retirement, the storage loss liability was more than the terminal benefits payable to him. In view of heavy liability, nothing was payable to him. As soon as it was decided by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director to waive the storage loss liability on high moisture paddy stocks, on 18.07.2001, on humanitarian grounds, the terminal benefits became payable to him and they were paid to him within a month from such decision. TNWC shared 50% of TNSC storage losses amount in respect of high moisture paddy storage loss cases vide letter dated 24.07.2001. Consequently, the C.M.D.has given orders for waiver of liability for all staff including the petitioner. Due to the negligence and inefficient management of the petitioner, the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation has suffered storage losses on higher side. Therefore, the request of the petitioner claiming interest at 18% per annum amounts to sheer greed. As there was no delay in settlement of his terminal benefits, there is no question of payment of interest. Hence, for all the above reasons, he prays to dismiss this writ petition.
18. The highly competent counsel Mr.S.Krishnasamy appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent suspended him without any allegation or enquiry. The allegations against the petitioner was that he had used abusive language against the executive of the respondent-Corporation. In order to prove the same, no witness was enquired and no circumstantial evidence was recorded against him. Therefore, the suspension order dated 14.07.1993, is an arbitrary one. Further, another charge was that the petitioner had caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,75,150/- due to his carelessness and negligence. The allegation was not proved. Under the circumstances, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is unwarranted. The highly competent counsel further submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner was not proved. Therefore, the impugned order against the petitioner is not sustainable under law and hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to allow the above writ petition.
19. The highly competent counsel Mr.S.A.Hafiz appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner had caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,75,150/- due to his negligence. Hence, a comprehensive enquiry was conducted and the same was proved against him. Further, the petitioner had not filed any Department Appeal against the impugned order. After comprehensive enquiry, it was proved that the petitioner is wholly responsible for the said loss to the respondent-Corporation. The highly competent counsel further submits that the petitioner had caused storage loss and hence, the impugned order has been passed.
20. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the typed set of papers, this Court does not not find any valid reasons assigned by the respondent to prove that storage loss to the tune of Rs.1,75,150.25/- has been caused due to the petitioner's negligence. It has further been admitted by the respondents that after the meeting of the petitioner with the Chairman cum Managing Director, the storage loss has been substantially waived. Further, there is no material evidence to prove the same. Hence, the above writ petition is allowed. Consequently, this Court sets aside the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 06.10.2001. However, this Court directs the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 31.07.1993 to 13.08.2001 on the terminal benefits of Rs.2,03,947.00. There is no order as to costs.
09/04/2014
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
r n s
To
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation,
No.100, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 032.
C.S.KARNAN, J.
r n s
Pre-Delivery Order in
W.P.No.6950 of 2002
09 /04/2014