CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. P VENKATARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) )

(2.) THESE writ appeals are directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.21944 of 1993 dated 24.11.1997, allowing the writ petition in part. As against the order setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service and modifying the same to that of compulsory retirement, the Khadi Board has filed W.A.No.154 of 1998. W.A.No.506 of 1998 has been preferred by the writ petitioner against the disallowed portion of the prayer in the writ petition.

(3.) THE respondents filed counter affidavit in the writ petition contending that the writ petitioner, while working as Khadi Assistant Grade-II/Manager, Bodinaikanur Quilt Unit during 1984-85 and 1985-86, he has not maintained the stock register properly and during audit the stocks were checked on 12.4.1985 and audit authorities have also signed in the stock register. THE said entries were altered by the writ petitioner by altering the Matress cover stocks available from 1515 to 1335 i.e., less by 180 Matressess Covers. On 14.7.1985 the writ petitioner handed over the charges of stock to one Periyasamy and at that time he has handed over 65 numbers lesser than the one mentioned in the altered figure. Thus there was shortage of 180+65=245 matress covers and its value at that time @ Rs.147.20 per matress cover works out to Rs.36,064/-. Similarly, for the year 1985-86, the audit was held on 13.4.1986 and it was recorded in the stock register that the lining cloth available was 3445.20 metres and the same was altered by the writ petitioner as 3045.20 metres, showing the stock less by 400 metres. THE value of 400 meters lining cloth @ Rs.15.10 worked out to Rs.6,040/-. Thus, the writ petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.42,104/- towards shortage of the above two materials. THE writ petitioner involved in malpractice of altering the records and fabrication of records and therefore there was a huge shortfall and hence he was suspended pending contemplation of enquiry for the above two charges. In the explanation, the writ petitioner submitted that the shortage may be while transporting the goods to Dindigul. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the writ petitioner admitted the alteration of entries in his explanation and during personal hearing. In the explanation he has stated that shortage would be about Rs.15,000/- and not Rs.42,104/-. Even assuming that the articles were lost during transit (shifting) writ petitioner being the custodian of the articles, he alone is responsible for the lost articles. In the counter affidavit it is further stated that the writ petitioner having admitted the shortages and the recovery order having become final based on the proved charges of tampering of records and misappropriation, the writ petitioner was dismissed from service. It is further stated that the writ petitioner is having 11 previous punishments such as stoppage of increments for 7 times and Censure for 4 times. Pointing out all these, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.