The writ petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the files of the respondents 3 and 2 in respect of their proceedings bearing RC.No.A17/6949/95 dated 30.04.1997 and Proc.Rc.No.G1/66605/97 dated 03.12.1999 respectively and quash the proceedings of the 3rd respondent bearing Rc.No.A17/6949/95 dated 30.4.1997 imposing the punishment of reduction in rank as the last person in the seniority list with minimum scale of pay and the proceedings of the 2nd respondent bearing Proc.Rc.No.G1/66605/97 dated 03.12.1999 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent and award costs.
2.The petitioner while working as a Junior Assistant in the respondent Corporation was assigned the work of a Point Clerk. He was attending his duty at the Narayanapillai Godown from 8.02.1995 along with other workers. In the Godown, huge quantity of Rice and Mazoor dhall were kept in stock for public distribution. On 14.03.1995 and 15.03.1995 the Vigilance Cell of the respondent Corporation made a surprise inspection and conducted physical verification of the stocks. During physical verification, it was found that there was a shortage of 152 bags of Rice and 57 units of Mazoor dhall. A report was furnished by the vigilance sell on 28.03.1995. According to the report, in the top layers of the stocks empty gunny bags were heaped with the intention of misguiding the inspecting officials to believe that commodity is stored. This aet of cheating was noticed and consequently a charge memo dated 09.06.1995 was issued to the petitioner and others. The charges are as follows:
"The following charges are therefore framed against the staff noted below:
1.Thiru. V.Dhandapani, J.A.
2.Thiru. S.Dinakaran, J.A.
3.Thiru. A.Isseac, J.A.
4.Thiru. S.Murugan, J.A.
5.Thiru. G.Sivamani, J.A.
Charge 1 The Shortage in stocks 152 bags of rice and 57 bags of Mazoor Dhall have occurred due to collusion of the above JA's with the intention of disposing the same illicitly for their personal gain.
Charge 2 In the top layers of the stocks empty gunnies were found with the intention of misguiding the inspecting officials this tantamount to the cheating up of the corporation.
Charge 3 From the above acts, the above individuals have proved themselves to be untrustworthy employees of this corporation."
3.The petitioners and others submitted their explanations to the charge memo. It was pleaded by the petitioner that he was working as point clerk in the Godown from 08.02.1985 and the incident took place barely after a month of his joining. The stocks are more than a year old and therefore, he was not responsible for the shortage alleged. On behalf of the respondent Department no oral or documentary evidence was let in, in support of the charges. Surprisingly, the Vigilance Cell Report dated 28.03.1995 has not been relied upon. The enquiry officer, came to the conclusion that all the three charges are proved and the report was sent to the Senior Regional Manager, who after considering the charge memo, explanation of the delinquent/petitioner, Enquiry Officer's Report and other documents, concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges as proved. He imposed the following punishment "reduction in rank as the last person in the seniority list with minimum scale of pay". Petitioner filed an appeal on 28.07.1997 to the General manager, (Administration), Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies corporation Ltd., who rejected the appeal on 03.12.1999 in his proceedings RC No.G1/66605/97. Thereafter, a Mercy petition was filed by the petitioner to the Chairman of the Corporation, which was rejected on 13.02.2003. The present writ petition has been filed thereafter.
4.Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the explanation, submitted by the petitioner to the charge memo, wherein he stated that the inspection was conducted within a month of joining and the stocks were there for more than a year, and therefore, petitioner was not responsible for the shortages. In any event, the case of the petitioner should be viewed leniently as he was incharge a part of the godown and cannot be held responsible for all the delinquency. He, further, pleaded that assuming that there is some shortage as is the case in all Godowns where huge quantity of food grains are stored there was no material to pin point that the petitioner alone was responsible for the shortage. The petitioner further pleaded that the higher punishment, granted to him needs reconsideration in view of the fact that four other delinquent junior assistants have been imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The counsel further pleaded that insofar as quantum of punishment is concerned, there is gross discrimination and arbitrariness, and that the Court should interfere with the quantum of punishment if not inclined to interfere with the findings on merit.
5.Heard Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent corporation and perused the records produced by the officers, who were present as directed by this Court. The counsel for the respondents stated that the huge shortage of essential commodities is a national waste. The punishment imposed is to ensure that shortages as noticed in this case does not occur. It is a deterrent to other staff of the respondent corporation as many are involved. He stated that the manner in which the empty bags were concealed between layer of bags containing Rice and Mazoor dhall would show that it was a deliberate action on the part of the officers. He, further submitted that all the junior assistants responsible were charged in the same manner for the delinquency and appropriate punishment was imposed.
6.In the present case, all the five Junior Assistants including the petitioner, on the basis of the Vigilance Cell Report dated 28.03.1995 have accepted that there was a shortage of essential commodities to the extent of 152 bags of Rice and 57 units of Mazoor dhall. The charge memo has been issued against all the five persons who are of the same cadre. The enquiry officer was of the view that the point clerks of the Godown are responsible for the shortage of stock as they have to take charge from their predecessor after satisfying themselves about the quantity. This will apply to all the five point clerks in the cadre of Junior Assistants. Therefore, when the shortage is proved and not disputed, all the five persons should be held responsible for the wrong done and suitable punishment should be imposed. There is no dispute on this issue.
7.In this case in so far as the punishment is concerned, the disciplinary authority imposed higher punishment on the petitioner. There is no discussion in the order of the disciplinary authority, as to why the petitioner was treated differently and is imposed with the higher punishment when other delinquents, who performed the same work as Point Clerks in the godown were imposed lesser punishment. When the disciplinary authority chooses to take a different view and impose a higher punishment for the very same delinquency, only in respect of the petitioner, its necessary that specific reason should be recorded based on materials. In this case, no such material is relied upon to treat the petitioner differently and no special reasons are recorded. Further the disciplinary authority has gone by the report of the enquiry officer and there is no discussion about the explanation submitted by the individual to the alleged shortage of stock. The role of the petitioner in the shortage different from that of other delinquent is not recorded. Therefore, the higher punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be justified and to that extent the order of the disciplinary authority as affirmed by the appellate authority requires reconsideration.
8.In the result, while confirming the findings with regard to the delinquency charged, the impugned proceedings so far as punishment is concerned is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner with regard to the quantum of punishment after hearing the petitioner on that issue alone. The authority shall keep in mind the punishment imposed on four other delinquents as pointed above. The Writ Petition is disposed off as above. No costs.