B PITCHIAH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 10.10.2003, confirmed by the first respondent, by order dated 16.07.2004.

(2.) The petitioner is working as Senior Clerk in the second respondent Spinning Mill. He was placed under suspension on 02.08.2002, in pursuant to an audit objection. Consequently, a charge memo was issued by the second respondent on 10.08.2002 stating that in the year 1992-93 certain goods, which were purchased for the Mill, were not brought inside the campus by the petitioner. Thereupon, after conducting an enquiry, an order came to be passed on 10.10.2003 by the second respondent, whereby, the petitioner was directed to repay the amount of Rs.37,238.75 in eleven instalments, being the value of the said goods purchased and not brought inside the campus. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Revisional Authority, viz., the first respondent. The Revisional Authority concurred with the finding of the second respondent and rejected the revision by holding that being the Administrative Head, the second respondent is empowered to order for recovery of the sum from the petitioner and such order is well within his administrative powers. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel on either side and I have also perused the records carefully.