TRILOKI PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims that he was appointed as Assistant Godown Manager in the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (hereinafter called the said Corporation) on 5.6.1981 and was posted at different godowns. It is also the case of the petitioner that at the relevant time between 23.2.1986 and 31.12.1987 the petitioner was made godown incharge of Katra godown at Patna City. The petitioner's case as made out in the writ petition is that the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Bihar, Patna used to make allotment of the stock of palm oil and rapeseed oil to the said Corporation obtainable from the State Trading Corporation of india (S.T.C.) and thereafter they were distributed to the various districts of the State on getting allotment from the respondent No. 1, the Secretary -cum -Commissioner, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Govenrment of Bihar, Patna. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said Corporation used to make requisition from the State Trading Corporation of India and on deposit of the amount of the requisitioned item, the tins of palm oil and rapeseed oil used to be supplied to Katra godown where the petitioner was made Incharge. The said Katra godown was the central point for distribution of palm oil and repeseed oil to all the districts of the State. The petitioner has tried to make out a case in the instant writ petition that he was surprised to find that the tins of palm oil, and rapeseed oil were delivered without any weighment to the representative of Katra godown and the petitioner objected to the said system and lodged his protest. The petitioner was instructed to take delivery from the Central Warehousing Corporation's godown on the basis of counting of tins only until further orders and the petitioner went on accepting on that basis. A dispute arose about the contents of the tins as the weight was found to be lesser and lesser. Therefore, in order to ascertain the nature of the dispute, the said Corporation and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 conveyed their concern to the Corporation. Accordingly a letter dated 30.5.1986 was written to respondent No. 1 expressing its concern and for possible suggestion. The Government directed the Corporation to constitute a High Power Committee consisting of Joint Secretary (Supply) to the respondent No. 1, General Manager of respondent No. 2, District Manager of Corporation of Patna (Urban) (respondent No. 5), Manager Central Warehousing Corporation and the Deputy Director, Weights and Measurements Department to ascertain as to what was the approximate differences between the branded weight and actual weighment of the consignment. The petitioner was also asked to give an explanation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was asked to give his explanation about the difference in weight and according to the petitioner he had given the said explanation. Thereafter by an order dated 14.9.1989 the petitioner's explanation was substantially accepted and loss to the extent of Rs. 8,81,009.89 was written off.

(2.) BY the impugned order the Managing Director of the said Corporation annulled the previous order as impermissible, un -warranted and perverse and held that the petitioner is liable to pay (a) Rs. 50,875.87 for foodgrains etc. at Patna Urban (b) Rs. 1,56,354.50 for foodgrains etc. at Motihari and (c) Rs. 2,54,770.40 for foodgrains etc. at Jamshedpur, in all totalling Rs. 10,40,293.49 (Rupees ten lakhs forty thousand two hundred ninety three and paise fortynine) only towards loss on account of shortages.

(3.) THE petitioner's contention is that after the order dated 14.9.1989 was passed by a competent authority the same cannot be reviewed by the successor -in -office in absence of any power of review. The order was passed in September, 1989 and it is sought to be reviewed in 1998. The Court should not permit such belated action on the part of the Corporation. By the impugned order at Annexure -1 not only the previous order dated 14.9.1989 has been annulled but the authorities have fastened on the petitioner financial liability and directed to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 10,40,293.49 P.