MOHAMMED INAYAT KHAN Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONED GULBARGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an allottee from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, who was holding the post of a Peshkar in the Revenue Department on 1-11-1956. After the petitioner was allotted to the new State of Mysore under the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the Board of Revenue, Civil Supplies (Accounts) Department of Anhdra Pradesh Government investigated into certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner when he was serving as a Store-keeper at Tandur in Hyderabad State between 16-11-1952 and 13-1-1956. As a result of the said investigation, the Director of Civil Supplies came to the tentative conclusion that the petitioner has caused loss when he was functioning as a Store-keeper to the extent of Rs.5,560-65 and that the same should be got reimbursed from him. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Board of Revenue, Civil Supplies Department of Andhra Pradesh Government, to which the petitioner sent his reply.

(2.) Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice by the Divisional Commissioner of Gulbarga dt.7/16th May, 1969, requiring him to show cause as to why, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 9(c) of the Mysore State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, disciplinary proceedings should not be taken to recover a sum of Rs.5,560-65 towards the value of shortages in foodgrains and gunnies of godown at Tandur, which occurred during the period the petitioner stayed at that place from 1952 to 1956. The petitioner sent a reply to the said show-cause notice. After receiving the said reply from the petitioner, the Divisional Commissioner made the impugned order on 17th January 1970, produced in the case as Ext.A, the operative portion of which reads as follows :

(3.) The petitioner has, in this writ petition, challenged the aforesaid order issued by the Divisional Commissioner of Gulbarga. The contantion of Shri Santhosh Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the Divisional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to make any order regarding recovery of a sum of Rs.5,560-65 the alleged loss caused by him when he was serving in Tandur in Hyderabad State. As the impugned order itself indicates the Divisional Commissioner passed the order invoking Rule 8(iv) of the CCA. Rule. Rule 8 of the Rules sets out the penalties that may be imposed on Government servants. Clause(iv) of Rule 8, with which we are concerned, reads as follows :