D MOHAN Vs. CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION; SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in all these writ petitions were during Kuruvai 1997 period i.e., between 15th September to 15th December of the year 1997 incharge of cap storage point alongwith one Ranganathan and Krishnan. They were placed in charge of paddy procured from the farmers by the superior officers. During that season there was unprecedented rainfall in relevant area Chidambaram and Kattumannarkoil Taluk within which area the cap storage points are situated.

(2.) The paddy which has been procured during this season was according to the petitioners, received in bad condition and as the petitioners were all workers, they had no discretion to reject any paddy and they were bound to receive and stock the same in the cap storage point, most of which are open yard storage. It is the further case of the petitioners that the paddies so purchased and stocked in open godown were germinated and sprouted resulting in loss of weight and also due to weighment in wet condition and due to natural decomposition etc., The cause which led to such loss of weight is according to the petitioners, beyond human control. Whileso, the respondents/Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation being well aware of the difficulties/factors as above stated enhanced the norms meant for routine losses from 8.35% to 11.10% on various heads, such as Moisture content, sprouted paddy, germinated paddy, unscientific godown, for road movement, natural decomposition etc.

(3.) Under such circumstances, separate show cause notices were issued to the petitioners containing the particulars regarding the total shortage and percentage and loss sustained by the Managing Directors and loss to be recovered. Thus way, the loss ordered to be recovered was calculated in each case and the show cause notice was issued demanding recovery of the amount equivalent to the loss from the petitioner holding them responsible for the above loss. Challenging the same, they preferred appeals before the first respondent/Chairman-cum-Managing Director who inturn confirmed the recovery order passed by the second respondent/Senior Regional Manager. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions came to be filed by the petitioners before this Court.