Allowed

A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, v. J. Papaiah

Telangana HC7 Jul 2014WA/140/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two writ appeals, the High Court dismissed petitions challenging the setting aside of a dismissal order against a civil supplies employee. The Court affirmed the lower order but modified it, directing the respondent to impose a punishment lesser than dismissal or removal within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Both writ appeals dismissed with modification directing the respondent to impose a punishment less than dismissal or removal within eight weeks.

A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶3

WRIT APPEAL No. 140 OF 2014 AND

¶4

WRIT APPEAL No. 1037 OF 2014

¶5

07-07-2014

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

The A.P State Civil Supplies Corpn Ltd., rep., by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, 6-3-655/1/A, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad

…Appellant

And

J. Papaiah

…..Respondents

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶13

WRIT APPEAL No. 140 OF 2014 AND WRIT APPEAL No. 1037 OF 2014

¶14

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

¶15

These two writ appeals are filed against the order dated 2108-2013 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 293 of 2010.

¶16

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.

¶17

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant, Grade-III in the year 1988. He was posted at Zaheerabad, Mandal Level Stock Point and was kept in-charge of five mandals.

¶18

The petitioner addressed a letter dated 25-06-2002 to the District Supply Officer, Medak stating that huge discrepancies are noticed in the distribution of stocks and that Nyalkal Mandal received about 1000 quintals of rice, in excess of allotment. The District Supply Officer in turn addressed a letter dated 09-07-2002 to the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer for reconciliation. It ultimately emerged that

¶19

1327.723 metric tonnes was supplied in excess, to Nyalkal Mandal and the other mandal received the stocks, in deficit.

¶20

The petitioner was placed under suspension on 25-09-2002. That was followed by issuance of a charge-sheet dated 30-01-2003. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer, and he framed two more charges on

¶21

21-05-2004. In his report dated 20-10-2004, the Enquiry Officer held that charge No.1 is proved in its entirety and charge No.2, in part. The petitioner was reinstated into service on 11-11-2004. However, five years thereafter, an order of dismissal was passed on 30-11-2009. Challenging the same, he filed the writ petition.

¶22

The petitioner pleaded that the allotment of rice used to be done by the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer on the requisition issued by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer for the

¶23

various works taken up under Food for Work (FFW) Scheme. He submitted that the discrepancy in the supply of rice was noticed by himself and there was not even an allegation of misappropriation or supply of rice to anyone unauthorisedly and still the punishment of dismissal was imposed. It was also pleaded that the Enquiry Officer himself held that there is no involvement of the petitioner and that the respondent has imposed such punishment without any basis.

¶24

The respondents filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. It was stated that the petitioner was supposed to take into account the actual allotment for the respective mandals before releasing any rice and that on account of his negligence or collusion with the contractors, substantial quantity of rice landed into the hands of unauthorised persons.

¶25

Through the order under appeal, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition setting aside the punishment of dismissal. It was, however, left open to the respondents to impose any other punishment duly taking into account the relevant facts.

¶26

While the respondent filed Writ Appeal No. 140 of 2014 challenging the order of the learned single Judge insofar as it has set aside the order of punishment, the petitioner filed the other writ appeal pleading that the learned single Judge ought to have set aside the order of dismissal in toto.

¶27

Heard Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶28

If one takes into account the quantity of rice that was found

¶29

to have been supplied contrary to the entitlement of each mandal, one would gain an impression that the petitioner became responsible for diversion of such huge quantity.

¶30

Under the scheme evolved and implemented by the Civil Supplies Department, each mandal is supplied certain quantities of rice and other essential commodities not only for ordinary public distribution but also for the FFW Scheme. The quantities, particularly when they are meant for five mandals are phenomenal. The charges framed against the petitioner read:

¶31

“Charge No.1: That Sri J. Papaiah, Ex-Incharge of MLS Point, Zaheerabad has issued excess quantity of 960.440 MTs., of rice under food for work and EAS schemes to Nyalkal Mandal than the actual allotment of 1661.245 MTs under MPDO, Nyalkal by the District Collector. The value of the above mentioned quantity comes to Rs.86,43,960.00 at single cost.

¶32

Charge No.2: That he has failed to follow the standing instructions of District Administration, while issuing rice to the Mandals as per the quantities allotted by the Collector, Medak restricting to the actual allotments of Collector, Medak.”

¶33

The two other charges framed by the Enquiry Officer were held not proved. Hence, it is felt not necessary to extract them. Further, those two charges are framed by the Enquiry Officer and they cannot be treated as valid.

¶34

A perusal of the two charges discloses that the concerned authorities were themselves not clear as to the role played by the petitioner. Except indicating that he issued 960.440 metric tonnes of rice to Nyalkal Mandal, it was not mentioned as to when the supplies were made and whether there did not exist any valid

¶35

release order for the quantity. The petitioner is not conferred with the power to allot or release rice to anyone. His duties are to receive the stocks from the District Level Godown and to release the same to the fair price shop dealers in the respective mandals or the agencies that have undertaken the works under the FFW scheme. This allotment in turn is made by the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer, on the requisitions issued by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer.

¶36

The petitioner was certainly required to be cautious and careful in releasing the rice and in verifying the entitlement of each mandal. However, the respondent did not adduce any evidence whatsoever in the departmental enquiry. The conclusions of the Enquiry Officer were based just upon the statement recorded from the petitioner. Hence, there is a serious lapse or lacuna in the departmental enquiry itself. Even in an enquiry of such a nature, the first charge was held proved and the second charge in part. Notwithstanding the lapse in framing the charge or the conducting of the proceedings, if there is an indication to the effect that the petitioner released the stocks without there being any valid release orders or that he played any role in the entire process, things would have been different altogether. The observations made by the Enquiry Officer, in para 33, makes an important guidance in this behalf. It reads:

¶37

“It is observed, as against the total release of 30,665.41 qtls., of physical stock of rice to Nyalakal Mandal from the MLS point, Zahirabad, a quantity of 21,100.90 qtls., was issued to 4 F.P. Shop dealers of other villages, eventhough there are regular F.P. Shop dealers in those Villages. Thus, it is evident that the MPDO has clearly

¶38

colluded with said 4 F.P. Shop dealers by requisitioning 2/3^rd of rice in their favour and traded in FFW rice transactions with malafide intention for Personal gains. It is clear commission of organised crime on the part of MPDO. Conspicuously, there is no role of Charged Officer in this episode. Interestingly MPDO issued only 1/3^rd of total stock of rice indented for issue of Release Orders to 18 Nos., of F.P. Shop dealers and 28 Nos., of Sarpanches, which is very meagre.”

¶39

From this, it is clear that the role of the petitioner in release of excess stocks to a particular mandal, was almost non-existent. Obviously, because of this, the petitioner was reinstated into service after submission of the enquiry report and it was only five years after the submission of the report, that the punishment was imposed.

¶40

The learned single Judge has taken the correct view of the matter and we are not inclined to differ with the same. The punishment of dismissal from service is certainly arbitrary and disproportionate to the role attributed to the petitioner even by the Enquiry Officer. Hard earned benefits in the service spread over decades cannot be permitted to be wiped away on the basis of the half-baked enquiry or the findings thereon.

¶41

We, therefore, dismiss both the writ appeals with a slight modification that the punishment that the respondent may impose shall not be either of dismissal or removal from service but anything less than that. The exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶42

The miscellaneous petitions pending in these appeals shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶44

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶45

07-07-2014 ks Note: LR copy to be marked. B/O ks

A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, v. J. Papaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, v. J. Papaiah

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

Md.Chand Pasha, S/o. late Mohd Masoom Vs Apsrtc

M.v.Seshachary, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

M.v.Seshachary, Vs The Presiding Officer

A.P.S.(C.R.I.C.Ltd) Co-Op Rural Irrigation Croporation Ltd. Vs a. Giri Prasad

T.Mallesham Vs Apsrtc., rep.by its Managing Director

Mr. J. Papaiah Vs A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited