AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda
Petitioner assailing the action of the 2nd respondent to recover Rs. 5,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner and to direct the 2nd respondent to refund the same already recovered, along with interest, this wit petition has been filed.
Indisputedly, one B.S.Srinivasa Rao was the Warehouse Manager at Maddur in Mandya District, prior to 04.06.2001. Petitioner was posted on 04.06.2001 to work as Warehouse Manager at Maddur, m place of Sri B.S. Srinivasa Rao. 2nd respondent issued notice dated 29.06.2005 to the petitioner enclosing Articles of Charge, copy of which is at Annexure-A. The petitioner submitted his defence, as at Annexure-B, to the said Articles of Charge. Before the departmental enquiry could be completed, Rs. 5,000/- per month was sought to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner towards the alleged loss, which had been subjected to departmental enquiry. However, by communication as at Annexure-C, the recovery ordered earlier was kept in abeyance and the amount deducted in the salary of April 2007 was ordered to be repaid. Questioning the action of the respondents in the matter of said recovery, this writ petition was filed on 05.06.20C9.
On 11.06.2009, as an interim measure, stay as prayed for was ordered.
Respondents having entered appearance through counsel, filed statement of objections on 06.08.2009. It has been admitted that, the petitioner was a Warehouse Manager at Maddur for the period from 13.06.2001 to 31.12.2004. According to them, there was storage loss of Rs. 6,04,990/- for the period June 2001 to October 2001 and hence the amount was sought to be recovered.
Sri Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, along with memo dated 28.10.2011, placed on record a communication dated 08.01.2010 of the 2nd respondent, furnishing copy of the Joint Departmental Enquiry Report, exonerating the petitioner from the charge alleged in the Articles of Charge, as at Annexure-A. Learned counsel also produced an order dated 25.04.2C11 of the 2nd respondent, accepting the departmental enquiry report, since the allegations against the petitioner, made in the Articles of Charge, as at Annexure-A, was not proved and the consequential direction to pay the service benefits to the petitioner.
Sri G.F. Hunasikattimath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents conceded that the petitioner has been absolved of the charge in the Articles of Charge, as at Annexure-A and that by an order dated 25.04.2011, the Managing Director has directed the extension of consequential service benefits to the petitioner.
In view of the events which have taken place subsequent to filing of the writ petition, noticed supra, the respondents cannot effect any recovery from the salary of the petitioner on account of Rs. 5,20,214/- recovered by the FCI, while, settling the Reservation Storage Charges amount to K.S.W.C Head Office, Bangalore. The charge levelled against the petitioner as per the Articles of Charge/Annexure-A having not been proved and the petitioner having been exonerated of causing loss of Rs. 5,20,214/- for the period from 13.06.2001 to 31.12.2004, it is not open to the respondents to recover any sum from the salary of the petitioner being the alleged loss which was subjected to departmental enquiry vide Annexure-A.
If the amount recovered from the salary of the petitioner towards the said account has not been refunded so far despite the order dated 25.04.2011 of the 2nd respondent, the respondents are directed to pay the same to the petitioner within a period of two months from today and in case of default, the amount shall carry interest at 9% p.a.
Writ petition stands disposed off accordingly.