S SUNDARAM PILLAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Geetha Thamaraiselvan, learned Government Advocate representing the respondents and have perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner herein was imposed with the punishment of recovery of amounts from the petitioner's salary amounting to Rs.71,040/- for the loss of shortage of 96 Aluminium Pipes during the period from 02.0.1990 to 06.01.1990. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as an Horticultural Officer at the fruit farm in Kanyakumari District. During that period, a theft of 96 Aluminium Pipes took place and it could not be recovered inspite of a criminal complaint lodged with the Kanyakumari Police Station. THEreafter, the petitioner was given show cause memo dated 22.01.1990 and after a series of correspondence and getting reply from the petitioner, it was decided by the official respondents that a recovery to be made for the loss caused to the Government from the petitioner. It is this order dated 15.11.1991 which was challenged before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'Tribunal'] in O.A. No. 4305 of 1991.

(3.) A careful reading of the order of the Tribunal impugned in the writ petition clearly shows that the petitioner had made some kind of plea-bargaining before the Tribunal. At the time of his O.A., he must have thought that Rs.71,040/- was much more valuable than the stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. But later on, he found that the stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect will be a constant burden which will also affect his pensionary benefits. All that the Tribunal could have done was, after rendering a finding that the petitionr was negligent and, therefore, he was liable to compensate the State for the loss caused by him and having found the book value of the stolen Aluminium Pipes was only Rs.23,616/-, it should have reduced the amount of recovery made against the petitioner. The Tribunal ought not to have substituted the order by an exercise of a power which it does not possess in terms of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.