GOPAL BAGHEL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order dtd. 01/11/2014 (Annexure- P/1) and order dtd. 19/04/2007 (Annexure- P/2), both passed by respondent no.4, whereby direction to recover Rs.1,15,000.00 from the petitioner has been passed on account of loss suffered by the Gwalior Sahakari Dugdh Sangh Maryadit. He has prayed for a direction to the respondents to refund the aforesaid amount together with interest.

(2.) The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in Gwalior Sahakari Dugdh Sangh Maryadit (hereinafter referred to as "Sangh") in 1979. At the relevant time, he was posted as Junior Assistant at Banmore Store of the Sangh. During physical inspection on 24/01/2007, it was found that as many as six CPUs and five colour monitors are missing from the store amounting to Rs.2,30,000.00. Since the petitioner was store in- charge, a show-cause notice was issued to him on 01/03/2007 alleging that because of his negligence the aforesaid items are missing from store and the Sangh has suffered loss of Rs.2,30,000.00 which is required to be recovered from him. He was directed to submit his explanation. The petitioner gave his reply on 09/03/2007 (Annexure- P/4) disputing his responsibility in the matter. The respondent no.4 thereafter passed order dtd. 19/04/2007 (Annexure P/2) thereby directing recovery of Rs.1,15,000.00 from the petitioner being 50% of the total loss caused to the Sangh. Remaining 50% was directed to be recovered from the security agency M/s Magnum International as it was also equally found responsible. It appears that the aforesaid amount was recovered from the petitioner by attaching his salary.

(3.) Even though the order directing recovery of the amount was already passed, a charge sheet on the same allegation was issued to the petitioner on 18/09/2007. The petitioner gave reply to the charge sheet also which is stated to be found unsatisfactory and, therefore, the enquiry was conducted. From the records, it is gathered that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 10/03/2014 wherein the allegation made against the petitioner was found partly proved. The respondent no.4 thereafter forwarded the copy of enquiry report to the petitioner vide letter dtd. 03/06/2014 asking him to give his explanation to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner gave his reply on 17/06/2014 again denying his responsibility. He also requested for personal hearing which was given to him on 05/09/2014. Thereafter, the impugned order dtd. 01/11/2014 (Annexure P/1) came to be passed by respondent no.4 whereby the petitioner is held liable for refunding the amount of Rs.1,15,000.00 being 50% of total loss caused to the Sangh. From this order, it is also gathered that since the amount was already recovered from the petitioner's salary, no amount was further required to be recovered.