J.PADMANABAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 05.08.2009 in Case No.36764 /Enquiry/2008, setting aside the order dated 22.04.2008 to withhold a sum of Rs.4,68,000/- from the terminal benefits due and payable to the petitioner and consequentially, seeking for a direction to the respondents to release a sum of Rs.4,68,000/- with held by the second respondent from the leave salary amount due and payable to the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined as Junior Assistant on 09.11.1976 with the respondent Corporation. He was promoted as Deputy Manager (Marketing ) with effect from 04.11.2003 and after attaining the age of superannuation, he was allowed to retire on 31.05.2013. On the date of retirement, a sum of Rs.4,68,000/- was withheld from his retrial benefits for drawal of temporary advance towards granules purchase made in the year 1992 payable on account of leave encashment. The petitioner states that the said amount was withheld for the reason that when he was working in a purchase Department, the payment made to M/s.India Petro Chemicals Limited ( IPC L) towards the purchase of granules in the year 1992 for conversion into poly film by poly film manufacturers and the accounts were not settled. The petitioner states that settlement of advances is the joint responsibility of the staff and officers of the stores section, purchase section and accounts section and the above cannot be held responsible for the non-recovery of the amount. The second respondent issued proceedings bearing Ref.No.983/E3/13 dated 31.05.2013 to withheld a sum of Rs.4,68,000/- from the petitioner. Challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent withholding the amount, the petitioner filed this present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended temporary advance is given against invoice for purchase of granules for conversion into poly film by poly film manufacturers. According to the petitioner, the settlement of advances is the joint responsibility of the officers and staffs of the stores section, purchase section and Accounts Section, The petitioner further states that he joined the Department in the concerned section in the year 1993 and therefore, he was not responsible for the payment of advance. The petitioner states that he could not be singled out for the loss caused to the department.