Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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.

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.