G.NANDAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been appointed as Assistant Salesman in the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation on 5.3.2004. While he was working as officer-in-charge of the Supplyco Supermarket, Chalakkudy, he was put in additional charge of the post of Manager of the Supplyco Maveli Medical Store, which was functioning near the supermarket. The petitioner is only an SSLC hand and had no qualification in Pharmacy. A Pharmacist was appointed on contract basis in the Medical Store on 5.6.2009. However, no bond was executed from the said person. An internal audit committee reported that during the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.10.2009, a loss of Rs.1,19,658.92 was occurred in the Maveli Medical Store. On the basis of the audit report, the 3rd respondent inflicted the liability on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was disposed of by Exhibit P5 order directing payment of Rs.41,983.33 after making allowable deductions. The said order was challenged before this Court and by Exhibit P6 judgment, this Court found that the petitioner, though a regular employee of the Corporation, had not been permanently employed in the medical shop and had only been put in charge. The order passed in appeal was set aside and the 3 rd respondent was directed to reconsider the appeal preferred by the petitioner taking note of the contentions raised by the petitioner. It is stated that thereafter, Exhibit P7 order was passed on 20.12.2018 without considering the relevant aspects of the matter and reiterated the earlier contentions and finding the petitioner liable for the amount as stated in Exhibit P5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's specific case that he had not been put in additional charge of the Maveli Medical Store and that he was not a regular employee of the medical store had not been considered by the respondents. It is contended that the petitioner has been treated as a regular employee in regular charge of the medical store and has been inflicted with the liability without due application of mind.