Dismissed

Basil Mathew v. Kerala State Beverages Corporation (M & M ) Ltd.

Kerala HC5 Nov 2019WP(C)/474/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an Abkari worker, filed a writ petition challenging the imposition of financial liability due to alleged stock shortage, claiming lack of physical verification and requesting exoneration and salary reimbursement. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had already accepted the initial liability and cannot now raise contentions after a thorough enquiry by the r

What did the court decide?

The prayers for quashing the orders, exonerating the petitioner, and reimbursing the salary deduction were dismissed.

Basil Mathew Vs Kerala State Beverages Corporation (M… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.474 OF 2018(H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BASIL MATHEW, AGED 59, S/O. MATHEW, NEDUMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, MANIMALA P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION (M & M ) LTD. (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BEVCO TOWER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 033

¶11

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION(MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD, BEVCO TOWER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 033

¶12

3 THE INTERNAL AUDITOR, THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION(MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD., BEVCO TOWER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 033

¶13

4 THE REGIONAL MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION(MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 501

¶14

5 THE WAREHOUSE MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION(MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD,AYARKKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM 686 501

¶15

6 SHIVARAM K.K., AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER CURRENTLY WORKING AS THE ASSISTANT MANAGER,THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION(MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION,WAREHOUSE, S.H MOUNT, KOTTAYAM 686 503

¶16

R1-5 BY SRI.NAVEEN.T.,SC,KERALA STATE BEV.CO. M.& CO. R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.09.2019, THE COURT ON 05.11.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.474 OF 2018(H)

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2019

¶22

The petitioner, who is an Abkari worker working under the first

¶23

respondent Kerala State Beverages [Manufacturing and Marketing] Corporation Ltd., has approached this Court seeking the following prayers :

¶24

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibit P9 and P11, in the interest of justice.

¶25

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents 1 to 5 to exonerate the petitioner from the liability evidence from exhibit P5 or

¶26

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the second respondent to have an independent assessment of the finding rendered in Exhibit P8 enquiry report and thereby exonerate the petitioner from the liability fixed upon him by way of exhibit P5

¶27

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2^nd respondent to reimburse the petitioner the sum of Rs.14,100/- recovered from his salary for the month of December, 2017, as evidenced from Exhibit P14, in the interest of justice.”

¶28

It is submitted that the petitioner had retired from service during

¶29

the pendency of the writ petition. It is stated that while working

¶30

WP(C).No.474 OF 2018(H)

¶31

¶32

at FL-1 shop at Manimala in Kottayam, the petitioner had been issued with Ext.P5 liability statement for Rs.5,17,645/-. He was directed to pay half of the said amount, which was on account of shortage in stock in the shop in question from 10.10.2014 to 31.10.2014.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had joined duty at Manimala shop on 03.10.2014. He claims that he had submitted Ext. P1 complaint to the Ware House Manager on 05.10.2014 pointing out that the shop-incharge was on leave from 02.10.2014 and that stock verification was not done. It is stated that on 09.10.2014, a stock verification was conducted in the shop by the District Audit team. It is stated that the shop-in-charge had come to the shop on that day. He took away the stock records and prepared a stock report without conducting verification of the physical stock

¶35

WP(C).No.474 OF 2018(H)

¶36

¶37

maintained at the shop. It is stated that Ext.P2 stock record was submitted by the 6^th respondent [shop-in-charge] before the District Audit Team. By Ext.P3 dated 21.03.2015, a liability of Rs.492/- was imposed on the petitioner for the deficit in stock.

¶38

Thereafter, physical stock verification was conducted on 31.10.2014 and the petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 notice. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the imposition of liability by Ext.P3 was without conducting the physical stock verification and that the same was completely untenable. It is stated that the petitioner has not signed on Ext.P2 stock record which contains mistakes and that as such, the imposition of liability on the petitioner by Ext.P5 was completely untenable. The petitioner, thereafter, prepared Ext.P6 representation before the Corporation stating that Ext.P5 was issued without actual physical verification of stock and that as such, the fixation of liability is wrong. Ext.P8 enquiry report is also relied on to contend that there were discrepancies in the stock records submitted by the 6^th respondent. It is stated that

¶39

WP(C).No.474 OF 2018(H)

¶40

¶41

the 6^th respondent, who was the shop-in-charge, was on leave from 03.10.2014 to 10.02.2015 and that Ext.P2 stock record was

¶42

on the basis of machine stock and not one prepared after the physical verification. It is, therefore, contended that the fixation of liability relying on Ext.P2 which was prepared without any physical verification of stock is completely illegal and unwarranted.

¶43

A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents 1 and 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is an Abkari Worker under the Corporation and that Ext.P1 complaint was not sent by the petitioner and no such complaint was ever received by the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner had accepted Ext.P3 and that fixation of liability as per Ext.P3 was accepted and an amount of Rs.492/- had been remitted without raising any objection. It is stated that later, the Audit Team conducted physical verification of the stock as per the relevant Rules. The liability for the period from 10.10.2014 to 31.10.2014 was fixed as per the Rules. It is submitted that the contention of the

¶44

WP(C).No.474 OF 2018(H)

¶45

¶46

petitioner that the fixation of the liability was on account of improper stock verification of the stock is not correct. It is stated that the liability fixed as per Ext.P3 was accepted by the petitioner and the amount was remitted. It is submitted that the District Audit Team is a group of trained officers and that the factual and legal aspects of the matter had been properly considered while fixing the liability. The complaint of the petitioner regarding the fixation of the liability was clearly considered in Ext.P8 enquiry report and it was found that there was no mistake in fixing the liability for the period from 01.04.2014 to 09.10.2014 as also from 10.10.2014 to 31.10.2014. It was clearly observed that there was no error in fixing the liability either by Ext.P3 or P5. It is stated that during the period from 10.10.2014 to 31.10.2014, only the petitioner and one Mr.Joseph Pothen were the employees in the shop and as such, they were liable to share the shortage found in the stock for the said period. It is stated that all the contentions of the petitioner were considered while passing Ext.P9 and that as such, no further action is liable to be taken in this regard.

¶47

WP(C).No.474 OF 2018(H)

¶48

¶49

The 6^th respondent has also placed a counter affidavit on record refuting the contentions raised against him. It is submitted that the allegations raised against the 6^th respondent in the Writ Petition are completely false and that the petitioner, who had accepted the liability in Ext.P3 and had paid the amount, cannot turn around and raise unsubstantiated contentions against other employees without any reason. It is stated that Ext.P4 was prepared after conducting the physical verification of the stock and the said statement had been accepted by the petitioner as well as the other employees of the shop. It is stated that it was on the basis of physical stock verification done by the District Audit Team that Ext.P5 notice had been issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that all the contentions raised by the petitioner were examined and Ext.P9 order was passed after completing the due procedure. It is, therefore, contended that the attempt of the petitioner is only to shift his liability to the 6^th respondent without any justification.

¶50

WP(C).No.474 OF 2018(H)

¶51

¶52

A reply affidavit has also been placed on record by the petitioner reiterating the contentions and stating that if Ext.P8 report had been properly considered, the petitioner would have been absolved from the liability. Ext.P15 minutes of the meeting with regard to the fixation of the liability is also relied upon.

¶53

I have considered the contention advanced on all the sides. The

¶54

petitioner has joined duty in the FL-1 shop at Manimala in Kottayam on 03.10.2014. It appears that the verification was conducted in the said shop on 09.10.2014. By Ext.P3, shortage in stock amounting to Rs.1,16,987/- was found for the period from 01.04.2014 to 09.10.2014. The petitioner, who had worked only for a week in the shop, was inflicted with the liability of Rs.492/-. The petitioner accepted Ext.P3 and paid the amount. Thereafter, physical stock verification was conducted by the District Audit Team on 03.11.2014. The physical stock as on 31.10.2014 appears to have been verified and Ext.P4 was prepared. The petitioner had signed on Ext.P4. Thereafter, Ext.P5 was issued with liability on short remittance of Rs.5,17,645/-. The petitioner submitted his objection to the

¶55

WP(C).No.474 OF 2018(H)

¶56

¶57

same. Ext.P8 report dated 25.06.2015 was prepared considering the petitioner's objections also. Thereafter, Ext.P9 order was passed on 22.09.2015. The amount of Rs.2,58,283/- was found to be the liability of the petitioner. Though the petitioner submitted further complaints, the fixation of liability was affirmed. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the stock report as on 09.10.2014 was not one prepared after physical verification and that the lack of physical verification was the reason for the shortage found in Ext.P4 stock verification. This aspect of the matter has been clearly highlighted by the petitioner before the respondents in Ext.P6 as also at the time of personal hearing. The complaint of the petitioner has apparently been considered in Ext.P8 enquiry report as well. The petitioner had accepted the shortage of stock as on 09.10.2014 and had remitted the amount as demanded in Ext.P3.

¶58

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contention now raised that lack of physical verification as on 09.10.2014 vitiated the imposition of liability is not a tenable

¶59

WP(C).No.474 OF 2018(H)

¶60

¶61

one. The petitioner, having accepted Ext.P3 and paid the amount cannot turn around and raise contentions against the same at this distance of time. In any view of the matter, the contentions raised by the petitioner have been examined by the respondents in Exts.P8 and P9. I am of the opinion that the prayers raised in the Writ Petition are not liable to be allowed. Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

kmd

WP(C).No.474 OF 2018(H)

¶67

¶68

APPENDIX

¶69

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶70

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY PETITIONER	OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 5.10.2014.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY 9.10.2014 RESPONDENT OBTAINED U	OF THE PHYSICAL STOCK RECORD DATED PREPARED AND PRESENTED BY THE SIXTH BEFORE THE DISTRICT AUDIT TEAM, NDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY THE INTERN PETITIONER EMPLOYEES	OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.03.2015 ISSUED BY AL AUDITOR FIXING THE LIABILITY UPON THE , THE SIXTH RESPONDENT AND THE OTHER OF THE SHOP
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY THE MONTH DEDUCTION PETITIONER	OF THE PAY-SLIP OF THE PETITIONER FOR OF DECEMBER,2017 WHICH EVIDENCES THE OF RS.14,100 FROM THE SALARY OF THE
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY THE MONTH DEDUCTION PETITIONER	OF THE PAY-SLIP OF THE PETITIONER FOR OF DECEMBER,2017 WHICH EVIDENCES THE OF RS.14,100 FROM THE SALARY OF THE
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY LIABILITY FOR THE PE	OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT OF THE SHOP ACCOUNT OF FL-1-SHOP NO. 5004 MANIMALA RIOD FROM 10.10.2014 TO 31.10.2014
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY PREFERRED RESPONDENT	OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.05.2015 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY FORWARDING	OF THE LETTER BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 COMPLAINT DATED 5.10.2015
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY PREPARED B	OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 25.06.2015 Y THE DISTRICT AUDIT TEAM, KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY THE 3RD RE	OF THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2015 PASSED BY SPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY PREFERRED	OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.01.2016 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶71

WP(C).No.474 OF 2018(H)

¶72

¶73

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2016 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶74

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE DISTRICT AUDIT TEAM, KOTTAYAM

¶75

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8-04-2016 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT

¶76

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE MINITS OF THE MEETING OF SHOP IN CHARGE CALLED FOR BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, BEVOC, KOTTAYAM.

Basil Mathew v. Kerala State Beverages Corporation (M & M ) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basil Mathew v. Kerala State Beverages Corporation (M & M ) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad Dhaka Vs the Director General

V.G.Valsala Vs Anitha.C.v

Anil Kumar Vs R.Suresh Babu

Vyshnav K.Vinodh, Vs the District Collector

Kairali Ayurvedic Health Resorts (Pvt) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Sree Priya K.V Vs District Collector