Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 756 (AP)

Ch. Murali v. Chairman and Managing Director

2012-08-23

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2012
Judgment : The petitioner joined the service of erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board, as Wireman in the year 1969. Over the period, the transmission activity in the Board came to be entrusted to the Transmission Corporation of A.P. i.e., 1st respondent herein. Thereafter, the petitioner earned number of promotions and by the year 1993, he was working as Assistant Divisional Engineer. A charge memo was issued on 05.07.1996 with three charges alleging that the petitioner was responsible for the loss of huge quantities of copper and aluminium; that he indulged in the acts of subversion and manipulation of the records and that he violated the Regulations and thereby cheated the Corporation. The petitioner submitted explanation on 2.08.1996. Not satisfied with that, the respondents directed enquiry into the matter. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that charge No.1 is proved and charge Nos.2 and 3 are not proved. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice thereafter. The Member Secretary of the 1st respondent-Corporation passed an order dated 09.12.1998 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement against the petitioner and directing recovery of a sum of Rs.8,38,715/-towards shortage of copper and aluminium scrap. The petitioner challenges the said order. The petitioner contends that the very initiation of proceedings was mala fide, inasmuch as he alone was chosen to be proceeded, though the Chief Engineer of the concerned wing clearly observed that there is involvement of the Divisional Engineer, Assistant Accounts Officer, Assistant Divisional Engineer and Senior Accounts Officer. He submits that the calculation as to the quantities of copper etc. are totally imaginary and the fact that an Assistant Divisional Engineer is not alone to deal with the matter pertaining to gathering of scrap, burning of it and forwarding it to contractors, was not at all taken into account. Other allegations are made as to the irregularities in the enquiry.On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed, denying the allegations. According to it, the liability of the petitioner was fixed after thorough enquiry and no procedural irregularities have taken place. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner is vitiated from the inception. He contends that despite the observation of higher officials that the matter pertaining to burning of scrap of copper and aluminium involves the Divisional Engineer, Assistant Accounts Officer, Assistant Divisional Engineer and Senior Accounts Officer, the petitioner alone was chosen. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner is vitiated from the inception. He contends that despite the observation of higher officials that the matter pertaining to burning of scrap of copper and aluminium involves the Divisional Engineer, Assistant Accounts Officer, Assistant Divisional Engineer and Senior Accounts Officer, the petitioner alone was chosen. He submits that the lack of transparency in the proceedings is evident from the fact that the official, who worked as Divisional Engineer, at the relevant point of time and later became Superintendent Engineer, was appointed as Enquiry Officer and when an objection was raised by the petitioner, a lame excuse was pleaded. He submits that the quantities were also taken on pure imagination and it was not a case where the petitioner was entrusted with a particular quantity of scrap and after burning it, he did not account for the standardized quantity. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the charge framed against the petitioner, that is referable to huge quantities of copper and aluminium, was held proved on the basis of the relevant facts and that the same does not warrant interference. As regards the contention of the selective initiation of proceedings against the petitioner, he submits that the respondents have examined the matter in detail before fixing the liability and the petitioner cannot escape from the liability fastened upon him. The respondents handle quite large number of Transformers of various capacities as well as Conductors. Whenever the Transformers are burnt, or aluminium conductors become out of use, the same are burnt and the material so recovered is handed over to the agencies, for reuse. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was kept in-charge of burning of scrap of Copper and Aluminium. The quantities of those metals, that were burnt over a long period, were taken into account and it was alleged that the petitioner did not account for quite large quantities of those metals. The explanation of the petitioner was that the quantities were taken on imaginary estimates and in many cases the figures were boosted. That however did not weigh with the enquiry officer. The first contention urged by the petitioner is that he was selectively proceeded against. It cannot be said that the said contention is without any basis. The explanation of the petitioner was that the quantities were taken on imaginary estimates and in many cases the figures were boosted. That however did not weigh with the enquiry officer. The first contention urged by the petitioner is that he was selectively proceeded against. It cannot be said that the said contention is without any basis. In a gigantic organisation like APSEB or its successor A.P.TRANSCO, and in a wing, where phenomenal quantities of copper and aluminium are dealt with, it is just unimaginable that only one officer will be entrusted with the task. The handling of such metals has several facets, such as accounting, marketing, procurement. A superior authority like the Chief Engineer, Warangal has mentioned more than once, that it would be atleast four officers viz., Divisional Engineer, Assistant Accounts Officer, Assistant Divisional Engineer and Senior Accounts Officer, that are involved in the matter. It is important to note that this observation was made after the enquiry officer submitted the report and was reiterated more than once. Still, the respondents have chosen to proceed against the petitioner alone. This Court finds that there was clear discrimination against the petitioner and undue favoritism was shown to other officials, who were connected with the matter. Coming to the another allegation of the petitioner that the facts and figures pertaining to the shortage of material was on the basis of imagination, this Court has perused the entire record carefully to examine the merits of this plea. Nowhere it is mentioned that any particular quantity was entrusted either to the petitioner or to his predecessor for burning. The quantities were arrived at on the basis of certain standardized figures. For instance, the copper from a transformer, is take as 74 kgs. It is the case of the petitioner that the standard weight of copper is 60 kgs. This was accepted by the Chief Engineer also in his letter, dated 08.11.1994. The disciplinary authority ought to have taken this into account. However, by making a sweeping observation that the petitioner is responsible for the discrepancy in the facts and figures, the entire liability was fastened upon him. Further, the burning of scrap was not at the same place or immediately after the Transformers were burnt. The activity took place long after and at a distant place. However, by making a sweeping observation that the petitioner is responsible for the discrepancy in the facts and figures, the entire liability was fastened upon him. Further, the burning of scrap was not at the same place or immediately after the Transformers were burnt. The activity took place long after and at a distant place. The possibility of portion of the scrap being utilized in the departmental purposes was not ruled out. The punishment imposed against the petitioner is of compulsory retirement and of recovery of Rs.8,00,000/-. Even assuming that there is some defect in the proceedings, the possibility of directing reinstatement of the petitioner does not arise, since he attained the age of superannuation. Further, he was already extended the benefit of retirement. The petitioner however has a genuine grievance against the order of recovery of amount. It has already been mentioned that atleast four officials were involved and there is any amount of uncertainty as to the quantity. This Court is of the view that the liability of the petitioner can be fixed at Rs.1,00,000/-.Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed reducing the amount to be recovered from the petitioner to Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only). The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.