D. Ashokan vs The Kerala State Beverages (M and M) Corpn.

S. Siri Jagan, J.—The petitioners were Helpers of the first respondent Corporation. They were issued with Exts.P1 and P2 show cause notices directing them to show cause why the value of stock found short on stock verification should not be recovered from them. The first petitioner filed Exts.P3 explanation. However, by Exts.P4 and P5 orders issued by the internal auditor, the petitioners were directed to pay amounts of Rs. 27,525/- each towards liability for shortage in stock. The petitioners filed Exts.P6 and P7 appeals before the Board of Directors which were rejected by Ext.P8 order. Exts.P9 and P10 further appeals were refused to be forwarded to the Government on the ground that there is no provision in the rule for an appeal to the Government. Later on, the petitioners directly filed appeals before the Government and although the Government heard the same, no orders were passed. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this original petition seeking the following reliefs:

i) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exhibits P4, P5, and P8.

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring all the steps taken by the 1st respondent to recover amounts from the salary of the petitioners by the 1st respondent on the basis of Exhibits P4, P5 and P8 as illegal and void.

Among other contentions, the petitioners would raise a specific contention that Exts.P4 and P5 orders passed by the internal auditor is without jurisdiction, in so far as there is no power vested with an internal auditor to pass orders fixing liability on the petitioners. It is further pointed out that Exts.P1 and P2 show cause notices were issued by the Managing Director himself and therefore, the Managing Director was the appropriate authority to pass orders pursuant to the show cause notices and therefore, clearly Exts.P4 and P5 orders passed by the internal auditor are unsustainable. Although other contentions are also raised, I am not inclined to go into the same, since this particular contention of the petitioner finds favour with me. Admittedly, Exts.P1 and P2 show causes notices were issued by the Managing Director. Exts.P4 and P5 orders have been passed by the internal auditor, who does not have any powers to fix any liability on the petitioners which power lies exclusively with the Managing Director.

In the above circumstances, Exts.P4 and P5 orders and Ext.P8 order on the basis of the decision of the Board of Directors are hereby quashed. The original petition is disposed of with a direction to the Managing Director to pass fresh orders after considering the contentions of the petitioners in Ext.P3 and affording them an opportunity of being heard.