Madras High Court
The Senior Regional Manager vs S.X.Avilieo on 27 November, 2014
Author: K.K.Sasidharan
Bench: Satish K. Agnihotri, K.K.Sasidharan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.11.2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.A.No.2185 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 1.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Goundampalayam, Coimbatore-641 030. 2.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Chennai-600 010. .. Appellants Vs. S.X.Avilieo .. Respondent This writ appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 08.11.2010 made in W.P.No.2403 of 2002. For Appellants : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji for Mr.S.Ramachandran For Respondent : Mr.S.Venkataraman - - - - - JUDGMENT
The challenge before the writ court was to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.9471/92R2 dated 22.10.1999 passed by the first respondent therein and the order dated 23.4.2001 passed by the second respondent therein confirming the earlier order passed by the first respondent.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, while working as Assistant Quality Inspector, was responsible for transportation of paddy from Kumbakonam Railway Station, Thanjai Region to Mettupalayam Railway Station, Coimbatore Region. He was issued with a show cause notice on 3.8.1999, calling upon him to submit an explanation with regard to the recovery of a sum of Rs.28978.45 being 50% of the total loss caused to the respondent corporation on account of transit of paddy in the month of November, 1992, wherein deficit of 1% weight was noticed and the value of the same was Rs.57,956.85. The writ petitioner/ respondent herein submitted his reply on 28.9.1999, stating therein that the loss was on account of the fact that when paddy was received, it was wet and in the transit, on account of drying up, the weight was reduced by 2%. In normal course, the reduction to that extent is permissible on account of drying up of paddy.
3. Without holding proper enquiry, on the basis of the show cause notice and the explanation, the first respondent therein /first appellant by the impugned order dated 22.10.1999 directed recovery of sum of Rs.28978.45 being 50% of the total loss, within a period of seven days. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent therein/second appellant herein. The second appellant, by an order dated 23.4.2001 confirmed the order passed by the first appellant and rejected the appeal.
4. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that before imposing the punishment of recovery of amount, under Chapter-5 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Employees Service Regulation, 1989, proper enquiry has to be held after appointing the enquiry officer and affording proper opportunity of hearing. The explanation given by the writ petitioner was not considered while passing the impugned orders. Thus, the impugned orders were quashed.
5. We have examined the facts and also the law involved in the case.
6. Indisputably, paddy 1895.693 Metric Tonne was sent from Kumbakonam Railway Station to Mettupalayam Railway station under the supervision of the respondent herein in the month of November, 1992. When it was received, it was short by 37.355 MT, causing loss to the tune of Rs.57956.85. The authorities, thereafter, failed to take any action for a long period of about seven years before the show cause notice was issued in August, 1999. The explanation was submitted by the respondent, stating that paddy when it was loaded and collected was wet and due to drying up process, the loss was caused and for that, the petitioner could not be held responsible. Without holding proper enquiry as to what was the actual loss and who was responsible for the loss, whether the respondent or any other person was involved in the entire process, the impugned order was passed directing recovery to the tune of 50% of the calculated loss. The impugned order passed by the first appellant was also confirmed without examining all the legal requirements before holding the employee as guilty.
7. We do not find any error or inconsistency in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The loss was calculated on the basis of the weight of the paddy booked and received at the other end. Further, no enquiry was done on the entire aspect whether the loss has taken place either on account of natural process of drying up or on account of some pilferage in between from one railway station to other railway station. After the paddy is loaded in the railway wagons, the railway authorities also were equally responsible to take care that no pilferage had taken place. On considering the explanation, the impugned orders were passed by the appellants. We are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is just and proper, warranting no interference.
8. Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.K.A., J.) (K.K.S., J.)
27.11.2014
Index : Yes/No
vvk
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.
and
K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.
vvk
W.A.No.2185 of 2011
27.11.2014