Partly allowed

Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation v. Union of India

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2024WP/39245/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged enquiry reports and orders for dismissal and recovery of financial loss imposed on managers of Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation. The Court quashed the proceedings and orders, holding that prior directions barred action based solely on driage losses and ignoring delays in stock lifting.

What did the court decide?

Quashed enquiry reports, recovery orders, and dismissal order; petitioners allowed to approach Corporation for payment of purchase cost of maize.

Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation Vs Union… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:19807 WP No. 39245 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 39245 OF 2011 (S)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

KARNATAKA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION (REGD) REP BY ITS PRESIDENT SOMASHEKAR S/O.SHIVAPPA GANJI, 47, PRIME ROSE ROAD, BANGALORE 25.

¶7

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

K G KENCHAPPA S/O.LATE K GIRIYAPPA MANAGER (WAREHOUSEMAN) KSWC,MIG 171/C, GANGA NILAYA, 2^ND STAGE HUDKCO, KALLAHALLI, VINOBHANAGAR, SHIMOGA 577204, DIST SHIMOGA.

¶9

K. L. MOHANA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS MANAGER (WAREHOUSEMAN) KSWC NO.866/8, 'B' BLOCK, 1^ST CROSS,SARASWATHI NAGAR, DAVANAGERE DIST, DAVANAGERE.

¶10

NOORAHAMED B CONTRACTOR S/O.BABAJAN A CONTRACTOR MANAGER (WAREHOUSEMAN) KSWC MRITYUNJAYANAGAR, 2^ND MAIN,

¶11

¶12

NC: 2024:KHC:19807 WP No. 39245 of 2011

¶13

2^ND CROSS, RANEBENNUR 581115 DIST HAVERI.

¶14

BASAVANNAYYA S/O.GURUSIDDAYYA HIREHAL AGE : 54 YEARS MANAGER (WAREHOUSEMAN) KSWC NEAR RAILWAY STATION, UDAYA NAGAR, HAVERI 581110, DIST HAVERI.

¶15

ABDULKAREEM S/O.HAJARATALI BYADGI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS MANAGER (WAREHOUSEMAN) KSWC MEHBOOB NAGAR, AKKI ALUR DIST HAVERI.

¶16

NAGANAGOUDA S/O.FAKKIRAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS MANAGER (WAREHOUSEMAN) KSWC 'CHINNAMMA' BUILDING, LAXMINAGAR BEHIND PRAKASH GINNING FACTORY, LAXMESHWAR 581116 TQ SHIRAHATTI, DIST GADAG.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. SANDEEP S PATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY (POLICY & FCI)DEPT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD & PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, GOVT OF INDIA,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:19807 WP No. 39245 of 2011

¶23

KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶24

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KADHYA SADANA, 16-20, BARA KAMBA LANE NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶25

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001.

¶26

GENERAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA NO.10, MAIN ROAD, EAST END JAYANAGAR 4^TH T BLOCK, BANGALORE 560 041.

¶27

KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD 43, PRIMA ROSE ROAD, BANGALORE 25.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI.KUMAR M.N., CGC FOR R1; SRI. S. SRINIVASA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4; SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R3; SRI. SANGAMESH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

¶31

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES CUM-ENQUIRY REPORTS BEARING NO.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:19807 WP No. 39245 of 2011

¶34

KRaUNi/Jaav/EV/30/255/2011-11 DATED 8.4.11, VIDE (ANNEXURE-A), NO. KRaUNi/Jaav/EV/23/519/2011-12 DATED 25.4.11, VIDE ANNEXURE-A1, NO. KRaUNi/ Jaav/ EV/33/243/2010-11 DATED 7.4.10, VIDE ANNEXURE-A3, NO. KRaUNi/ Jaav/ EV/18/ 7778/ 2009-10 DATED 15.09.09, VIDE (ANNEXURE-A5), NO. KRaUNi/Jaav/EV/31/1427/2010-11 DATED 5.5.10, VIDE ANNEXURE-A7 & NO. KRaUNi/Jaav/EV/12833/2007-08 DATED 20.3.08, VIDE ANNEXURE-A9;

¶35

QUASH THE NOTICES CUM-ENQUIRY REPORTS BEARING NO. KRaUNi/Jaav/EV/69/459/2011-12 DATED 13.4.2011, VIDE (ANNEXURE-A11), NO. KRaUNi/Jaav/EV/69/5465/2011-12 DATED 22.9.11, (VIDE ANNEXURE-A12), NO. KRaUNi/ Jaav/ EV/84/10992/2011-12 DATED 6.2.12, VIDE ANNEXURE-A13, NO. KRaUNi/ Jaav/ EV/88/ 3834/ 2013-14 DATED 22.10.13, VIDE (ANNEXURE-A14), NO. KRaUNi/Raau/Honnali/412/2013-14 DATED 6.11.2013, VIDE ANNEXURE-A15;

¶36

QUASH THE RECOVERY ORDER BEARING NO. KRaUNi/Jaav/EV/29/658/2011-12 DATED 30.4.11,

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:19807 WP No. 39245 of 2011

¶39

VIDE (ANNEXURE-A2), NO.

¶40

KRaUNi/Jaav/EV/33/462/2010-11 DATED 13.4.11, VIDE ANNEXURE-A4, NO. KRaUNi/ Lekkapatra/ 3225/2011-12 DATED 18.7.2011, VIDE ANNEXURE-A6, NO. KRaUNi/lekkapatra/3223/2011-12 DATED 16.07.2011, VIDE (ANNEXURE-A8), NO. KRaUNi/Jaav/EV/35/386/2010-11 DATED 8.4.10, VIDE ANNEXURE-10;

¶41

QUASH THE ORDER OF DISMISSED FROM SERVICE AND RECOVERY OF STORAGE LOSS FOR THE YEAR 2004 05 IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NO.2 DATED 05.11.2013 BEARING Ka.RaaUni/ADM/PER 51/4112/2013-14 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A16); DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1, 2 AND 4 TO REIMBURSE THE ENTIRE COST OF PURCHASE OF MAIZE INCURRED BY THE 5^TH RESPONDENT-CORPORATION DURING THE YEAR 2004-2005 AND 2005-2006 BY FINALIZING THE PROVISIONAL ECONOMIC COSTING ON THE BASIS OF THE ACTUAL COST INCURRED BY THE 5^TH RESPONDENT CORPORATION AS DIRECTED BY THIS COURT IN WP NO. 558/2007.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:19807 WP No. 39245 of 2011

¶44

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

This petition is by those who are working with

¶47

the fifth respondent [the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation Limited - for short, 'the Corporation' ] Managers and a Union of the Employees [the Union] with the Corporation. If the petitioners [except the second petitioner¹ ] who are working as Managers with the fifth respondent are aggrieved by the initiation of the enquiry proceedings against them and the corresponding orders for dismissal and recovery of certain amounts alleged as due, the Union [ the first petitioner ] is essentially canvassing that the Union of India and the Food Corporation of India, [the first and second respondents respectively] as also

¶48

the fourth respondent must pay the State

¶49

1 It is stated that the second petitioner has been served with the order of dismissal dated 05.11.2013 after the conclusion of the departmental proceedings against him.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:19807 WP No. 39245 of 2011

¶52

Government for the losses incurred to the

¶53

Corporation.

¶54

However, Sri Sandeep S Patil, the learned

¶55

counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submits that neither the first petitioner nor the other petitioners propose to continue the writ petition for any relief as against the first, second and fourth respondents. With this submission, the petition as against these respondents must be dismissed, and the merits of the individual petitioner’s grievances as against the different enquiry reports and the orders for dismissal and recovery of the amounts will have to be examined.

¶56

Sri Sandeep S Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kumar M N, the learned Central Government Counsel for the first respondent, Sri S Srinivasa Murthy, the learned counsel for the second and fourth respondents, Sri Gopala Krishna Sooda, the learned Additional Government Advocate

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:19807 WP No. 39245 of 2011

¶59

for the third respondent, are heard for final disposal. Sri Sandeep S Patil, without dispute from the other side, explains the following as the circumstances leading to the petition.

¶60

The fifth respondent was identified as one of the Nodal Agencies by the State Government to procure maize to implement the Central Government's Scheme for extending Minimum Support Price to the farmers, and with the Corporation so identified, the Managers with each unit of the Corporation were entrusted with procurement, storing and facilitating removal of the stock. This Scheme was implemented through the Corporation for the years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2009-10 and 201314. The Corporation procured maize during these years but there was delay [ according to the petitioners ] in the Food Corporation of India [FCI] lifting stock which constrained the first petitioner to approach

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:19807 WP No. 39245 of 2011

¶63

this Court with the writ petition in W.P. No.5558/2007.

¶64

This Court has disposed of² this writ petition directing the Union of India to complete the ‘ economic costing’ of the maize for Kharif Monsoon Season [KMS] 2004-05, 2005-06 with the observation that the Corporation would be at liberty to proceed with the enquiry against its employees where they are found to be delinquent but with the explicit stipulation that no proceedings shall be initiated for losses due to driage.

¶65

Sri Sandeep S Patil canvasses that it was brought to this Court's notice that the delay was because of the FCI and that because of such delay, the proceedings were being initiated against the Managers and other employees with the Corporation. Sri Sandeep S Patil, relying upon the directions by this Court as aforesaid in the writ petition in W.P.

¶66

2 Date of Disposal - 14.08.2008

¶67

10 -

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:19807 WP No. 39245 of 2011

¶69

No.5558/2007, contends that with this specific embargo the fifth respondent could not have initiated any proceedings against any of the petitioners but notwithstanding the same, the proceedings are commenced.

¶70

Sri Sandeep S Patil next contends that the petitioners are found culpable and therefore responsible for alleged losses essentially because of the allegation that they are responsible for driage. The learned counsel submits that even according to the appropriate communication from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, the Corporation should have considered driage losses at 0.53% of the stock procured and the petitioners are found guilty of having brought about a reduction in the weightage beyond 0.53% without considering the circumstances such as the delay in lifting and the losses of moisture content in the stock with the stock lying in the premises identified by the Corporation.

¶71

11 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:19807 WP No. 39245 of 2011

¶73

It is also brought to this Court's notice that in similar circumstances, this Court has interfered with the proceedings and the decision to impose punishment, and in this regard, this Court's attention is drawn to the orders of this Court in the writ petitions in W.P. No.31402/2017 and connected matters³ as also orders of this Court in the writ petitions in W.P. Nos.33426/2013 connected with the writ petition in W.P. No.4484/2018⁴ . This Court admittedly while disposing of the writ petition in W.P. No.5558/2007 has injuncted the fifth respondent from proceeding with the enquiry on the ground of losses caused to it is because of driage.

¶74

This Court must record respectful agreement with the finding in the proceedings in the writ petition in W.P. No.31402/2017 and connected matters in concluding that after this Court's order in the writ petition in W.P. No.5558/2007, the fifth

¶75

3 Date of Disposal - 23.04.2024

¶76

4 Date of Disposal - 31.05.2024

¶77

12 -

¶78

NC: 2024:KHC:19807 WP No. 39245 of 2011

¶79

respondent could not have initiated the proceedings only on the ground that there was loss without examining the circumstances under which such loss could have been caused especially because of the assertion that there was delay in lifting the stock from the concerned premises is brought on record.

¶80

This Court must next observe that the fifth respondent indisputably has not been consistent in extending the benefit of driage loss in the different proceedings initiated against its employees or in assigning reasons for the different driage losses allowed in these different proceedings. In some cases, as is observed by this Court in the course of the order dated 31.05.2024 in the writ petitions in W.P. Nos.33426/2013 and connected matter, the driage loss is allowed to the extent of even 2%.

¶81

The conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings is without considering the significance of this Court's order in the writ petition in W.P.

¶82

13 -

¶83

NC: 2024:KHC:19807 WP No. 39245 of 2011

¶84

No.5558/2007 or examining the reasons for loss given to justify the delay in lifting the stocks and the possible reasons for moisture loss as recorded during the period when the stock is procured and lifted. Therefore, this Court must intervene insofar as the petitioners' grievance for recovery and imposition of punishment. Sri Sandeep S Patil submits that during the pendency of this petition, the second petitioner has been served with the order of dismissal dated 05.11.2013, and as such, the writ petition is amended but the other petitioners are only facing threat of recovery because of the impugned orders. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶85

ORDER

¶86

[a] The petition as against the first, second and fourth respondents stands dismissed and the petition is otherwise allowed quashing

¶87

the Notice cum Enquiry Reports [Annexures - A, A1, A3, A5, A7, A9, A11, A12, A13, A14 and A15] as also the

¶88

14 -

¶89

NC: 2024:KHC:19807 WP No. 39245 of 2011

¶90

Recovery Orders [Annexures-A2, A4, A6, A8, A10] and the second respondent's order of dismissal issued to the second petitioner dated 05.11.2013 [Annexure-A16].

¶91

[b] The petitioners are reserved with liberty to file a representation along with a certified copy of this order for settlement of their financial benefits as a consequence to this order. They shall be at liberty to file such representation within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, and the fifth respondent shall consider the same within an outer limit of four [4] months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶92

JUDGE

¶93

Sd/-

¶94

AN/-

Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H.S. Virupaksha Vs the State of Karnataka

Kumari Champaka N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K M Venkateshappa Vs Canara Bank

Smt Kasturi H M W/O Late Sri K H Mahalingappa Vs the Karnataka State Khadi Village

Sri S.Vishwanath Vs Central Bank of India

Shri G.Kristappa Vs the State of Karnataka