J. VENUGOPAL Vs. THE CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the recovery order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.2281/05/610 dated 29.5.2006 and the order of punishment passed by the 2nd respondent in Proc.No.AD5/65406/05 dated 13.02.2006 as confirmed in Appeal by the 1st respondent in Proc.No.AD1/41363/2006 dated 25.01.2007 against the petitioner, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Superintendent in the respondent Corporation and assigned to Godown Superintendent at Erode Godown. While so, on 26.4.2005, the Manager (Marketing), Head Office, surprisingly inspected the godown and noticed certain omissions on the part of the point clerks. Based on his report, the petitioner was placed under ad-interim suspension w.e.f. 05.05.2005 and charges were framed against him and after holding enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings on 20.9.2005 by exonerating the petitioner from charge Nos.1 and 2 and held the petitioner responsible for Charge Nos.2, 4 and 5 holding that as there was a deficit in the stocks of the rice bags and lack of proper supervision on the part of the petitioner herein, there was a huge loss to the respondent Corporation. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the 2nd respondent herein, after considering the Enquiry Officer's Report, differed from the same with regard to the Charge Nos.1 and 3, however, without notice, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect besides recovery of loss sustained by the Corporation from him, also ordered for recovery of Rs. 5534/-. Challenging the order of punishment passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the 1st respondent Appellate Authority on appeal as well as the order of recovery passed by the 3rd respondent, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.

(3.) A Counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.695/2008 inter alia stating that in fact, the 2nd respondent Disciplinary Authority in his Proceedings dated 13.2.2006 has discussed everything and narrated the facts whatever took place in the godown on 26.4.2005 as to what are the charges framed against the petitioner and after perusing the petitioner's explanation and the Enquiry Officer's Report, finally concluded that all the five charges were proved and imposed a punishment of stoppage of annual increment to the petitioner for a period of one year with cumulative effect, besides the recovery of loss suffered by the respondent Corporation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent, who in turn, rejected the same by order dated 25.01.2007, by confirming the order of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent has answered each and every ground and given valid reasons for rejecting the appeal.