IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.1209 OF 2015 (S-R) BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION NO.43, PRIM ROSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B N, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. H. S. LAKSHMEGOWDA SON OF SRI SUBBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RETIRED DEPUTY MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION RESIDING AT NO.88, TAPONIDHI ARKAVATHI ROAD, GURURAJA LAYOUT, MYSURU-570 011.
….RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H J ANANDA ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.34710 OF 2012 DATED 06.02.2015.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ASHOK S KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 06.02.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.34710 of 2012, allowing the writ petition, the respondent is in appeal before this court.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Petitioner was working as a Deputy Manager with the respondent-Corporation and retired from service on 30.09.2010, on attaining superannuation. On 18.01.2011, respondent - The Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation (‘Corporation’ for short) ordered for recovery of Rs.2,46,130/- from his terminal benefits with reference to shortage of storage materials when he was working at Mandya during January 1999 and May to July 1999, vide Annexure-A. Petitioner requested the Corporation to release the withheld amount on 27.03.2011, and in turn, Corporation requested the Food Corporation of India to set right the anomaly of storage shortage on 03.06.2011. Petitioner also approached the Food Corporation in this regard on 13.06.2011 and 10.08.2011. Inspite of these factual aspects, respondent-Corporation ordered for recovery of alleged loss from the terminal benefits of petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of recovery by the respondent-Corporation, petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.34710 of 2012 seeking to quash the portion of the order dated 18.01.2011 (Annexure-A) and to direct the respondent to grant all consequential, monetary and service benefits including release of recovered/withheld amount of Rs.2,46,130/- with 18% interest.
After hearing both sides, learned Single Judge held that withholding of amount is unjustified, since no departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner. Further, learned Single Judge held that no departmental inquiry can be initiated now, since the petitioner retired more than 4 years back and Rule 214 of the KCSRs. specifically bars initiation of any departmental or judicial proceedings against retired persons in respect of dues from him four years after the events. Considering the facts and circumstances, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with cost of Rs.1,000/- and set aside the impugned order dated 18.01.2011 (Annexure-A) and directed the respondent-Corporation to release the withheld amount of Rs.2,46,130/- along with 8% interest to the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, respondent is in appeal before this court.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. The records discloses that the petitioner has served the respondent-corporation and retired on 30.09.2010. The respondents have withheld the amount of Rs.2,46,130/- towards storage of materials and to recover the amount. However, the petitioner gave representation to set-right the alleged storage of materials on 13.06.2011 and 10.08.2011. Further, respondent-corporation wrote one more letter to the Food Corporation of India to regularize the anomaly of storage materials on 10.08.2011. Followed by some more communications by the Corporation to the Food Corporation of India vide communications dated 19.08.2011, 30.08.2011, 04.11.2011 and 09.11.2011.
despite these factual aspects, the respondent- corporation ordered for recovery of alleged loss of storage materials from the petitioner.
6. That as per sub-Section 2 of Section 17 clearly disclose that if there is any shortage in the goods stored in the warehouse be dryage or other causes beyond the control of Warehouseman, the Warehouseman shall not be responsible therefore. Further, Section 3 contemplates that in the event of a dispute arising as to whether such shortage or excess is due to the dryage or absorption of moisture or is due to other causes beyond the control of Warehouseman, the matter shall be referred in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed, to the appellate authority referred to in Section 29 whose decision thereon shall be final and binding. The respondent-corporation has not challenged the same before the appellate authority. For shortage of material, the petitioner alone cannot be held responsible. Apart from that many other employees were also working along with the petitioner, only the Deputy Manager cannot be held responsible for shortage of material. Apart from that, while fixing the liability on the Deputy Manager for shortage, no enquiry was conducted. In the instant case, the retirement benefits has been withheld without following the procedure prescribed under law and also principles of natural justice. Before punishing the petitioner, the respondent must give a finding that due to the action of the petitioner, the respondent- corporation has suffered loss, then only the liability can be fixed on the petitioner. There are other employees in the Warehouse but no liability has been fixed on them. Without holding enquiry the petitioner cannot be punished.
7. The action of the respondent-corporation in withholding the retirement benefits is contrary to Rule 214 and 215-A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules and it cannot be sustainable. The respondent- corporation has not considered the representation of the petitioner and has not taken any decision. The petitioner was retired from service on 30.09.2010. The action initiated by the respondent-corporation is highly belated one. The incident alleged against the petitioner relates back to four years old. As per Rule 214(2)(b) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, there is a bar to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The respondent-corporation withholding the amount without holding departmental enquiry was not justified.
8. In view of the above, the learned single Judge after considering the entire material on record has rightly allowed the writ petition. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RD