PALANISAMY Vs. MANAGEMENT OF RANI MANGAMMAL TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the respondent-management of Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation, dated June 27, 1994, ordering recovery of Rs. 13,400 from the salary, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the said order.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he was working as a conductor in the Palani depot of the respondent-Corporation. He had put in 14 years of unblemished record of service. He was on duty on April 26, 1992 in a bus running between Madurai and Coimbatore. The bus had shed-out from Palani at 4. 30 A. M. At that time, he was entrusted with 3 ticket books. The bus had reached Madurai at about 8 A. M. The bus would have to return back to Palani depot only on the evening at about 6 P. M. on April 27, 1992. Out of the 8 unused ticket books, one was meant for April 26, 1992 and the other was for April 27, 1992 and the third was a spare one. Each ticket book contained 500 leaves. The respondent- Corporation has not made any arrangement for the safe custody of the ticket books. Long route buses continuously operate for 2 days and some times more than 2 days. While he was issuing tickets on April 26, 1992 in the first trip (Palani-Madurai), he found that the two unused ticket books kept in his bag along with his things, namely, lunghie, towel, shirt, shawl and Rs. 120 with purse were stolen. Immediately, he informed the Palani depot through wireless. He got a new ticket book for his duty on April 27, 1992, from, Ottanchattram depot. On return to Palani depot after completing his duty on April 27, 1992, he noted the number of the ticket book and thereafter lodged a complaint in the Palani Police Station. While so, the respondent issued a chargesheet, dated September 21, 1992, alleging that he lost two ticket-books and invoice on April 26, 1992 and therefore, he was negligent in his duty. He submitted an explanation explaining the above said facts. Not satisfied with his explanation, an enquiry; was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that he was negligent and based on his report, the respondent passed the impugned order, dated June 27, 1994. There is no evidence to show how the amount of Rs. 13,400 was fixed towards the value of ticket books. The impugned order recovering Rs. 13,400 from his wages in 48 instalments is illegal, unjust and arbitrary and having no other remedy has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) THE respondent-Corporation filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that since the petitioner had not returned the two new unused ticket books which were given to him on April 26, 1992 and the invoice, based on the report of the Junior Superintendent on April 27, 1992, a chargesheet, dated September 21, 1992, was issued to the petitioner charging him with negligence in losing the ticket books belonging to the respondent-Corporation and also causing a loss of Rs. 13,400 to the Corporation. In the enquiry, the complainant John Manikkaraj was examined and he was also cross-examined by the workman. The workman himself was examined and also there is a loss caused to the respondent Corporation. Accepting the report, the management issued a show- cause notice and after considering his explanation which was not satisfactory, passed the impugned order, dated June 27, 1994, for recovery of the amount of Rs. 13,400 in 48 equal monthly instalments from the petitioner. So far as computation of the amount of loss is concerned, the same has been done in accordance with the guidelines and the rules prescribed therefor. After considering all the relevant materials, the management took a lenient view and ordered recovery of the loss of Rs. 13,400 from the petitioner in 48 equal monthly instalments. There is no merit in the writ petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.