T K SUKUMARAN Vs. KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who were helpers under the first respondent attacks Exts. P2, P3 and P5 orders issued to them. The short facts necessary for determination of this case could be given as follows.

(2.) The petitioners are working as helpers under the first respondent and it so happened that a memo had been issued on 18.9.1995 to the first petitioner to the effect that while holding the post of helper at I.M.F.L. Outlet, he had caused shortage in stock worth Rs. 47,592/-. Similar memo was also issued to the other petitioner as well. Explanations were submitted, but they had denied the allegations. Thereafter, proceedings of the Managing Director dated 4.5.1987 had been issued stating that they were found guilty of laches and are held responsible for the shortage of stock. Thus, they have been directed to re-imburse the loss that had been suffered by the Corporation. Appeals were filed against such orders under Rule 16(iii) of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Helpers' Service Rules, 1978 as evidenced by Ext. P4. However, the appeals were in due course dismissed.

(3.) The short question to be considered is as to whether proceedings that had been taken against the petitioners were warranted or was it necessary for the Corporation to hold further detailed enquiries in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The submission of the petitioners was that it was incumbent on the part of the Corporation to hold enquiries and prove the charges against them, in view of the stand taken by them. However, reliance is placed by the respondent Corporation on the governing services rules to which reference has already been made. It is pointed out that Rule 13(ii) of the rules envisage the procedure to be followed in such cases. It has been pointed out that these lapses had been categorized and treated as a minor misconduct. Respondent therefore contends that it was not mandatory that a domestic enquiry be held as this was not a service condition of the petitioners and they were bound by the rules which had been approved by the Government and thus valid and operative.