Priya C. Sankar v. The Chairman and Managing Director, Civil Supplies Corporation, Kochi and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 24TH ASWINA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 40578 OF 2018`** ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` PRIYAC.SANKAR FORMERSENIORASSISTANTGRADE-1,SUPPLYCOSUBDEPOT, POOTHOLE,THRISSUR,RESIDINGATVADAKKOOTTU CHEMBUVALAPPIN,PERINCHERIP.O.,AVANISSERIVILLAGE, THRISSUR-680306,NOWWORKINGASRATIONINGINSPECTOR, TALUKSUPPLYOFFICE,CHAVAKKAD,THRISSURDISTRICT BYADVS. K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.HARISHR.MENON SRI.A.G.PRASANTH SMT.K.N.ABHA ``` ``` RESPONDENTS: ``` ``` 1THECHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR CIVILSUPPLIESCORPORATION,GANDHINAGAR, KOCHI-682020 2REGIONALMANAGER, CIVILSUPPLIESCORPORATION,SUPPLYCOREGIONALOFFICE, NEARMALAYALAMANORAMA,T.B.ROAD,PALAKKAD678014 3DEPOTMANAGER SUPPLYCODEPOT,POOTHOLE,THRISSUR-680306 ``` ``` SRI.RLAKSHMINARAYAN,SCFORSUPPLYCO ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFOR ADMISSIONON16.10.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY DELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C)NO.40578OF2018 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner states that she was appointed on deputation as Senior Asst. Grade I in the Civil Supplies Corporation with effect from 23.12.2013, and she was posted in the Poothole Sub Depot of Supplyco at Thrissur. While she was working as aforesaid, a lorry carrying about 50 bags of raw rice was seized from the premises of the Sub Depot on 05.03.2014. A Crime was registered, arraying five persons as accused. Consequent to the registration of the Crime, the petitioner, along with the custodian of the stock, were placed under suspension by order dated 14.3.2014. She was served with Ext.P1 Memo of charges. A specific allegation against the petitioner herein in the Charge is that a loss of about Rs.1,33,332/- was incurred on account of the supervisory lapses on the part of the petitioner. The premise on which disciplinary proceedings were initiated was that the rice found in the vehicle was actually the rice that was taken out from the godown. 2. The petitioner asserts that she contested the disciplinary proceedings and filed Ext.P2 statement of defense, raising various contentions. It appears that since disciplinary proceedings were not concluded in time, the petitioner approached this Court, and pursuant to ``` WP(C)NO.40578OF2018 ``` ``` 3 ``` the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment, the petitioner was reinstated in service. The petitioner asserts that later Ext.P4 order was passed by the 2nd respondent, holding that the petitioner had joint responsibility for the rice stock that was taken out from the godown. The petitioner states that simultaneously, a Crime was registered against her. However, the learned Magistrate, after perusing the case records, discharged the petitioner for failure to secure sanction for prosecution. 3. The petitioner asserts that being aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, she preferred a detailed appeal contending that the petitioner was innocent. The petitioner states that without adverting to any of the contentions advanced by her in the appeal, the 1st respondent has passed Ext.P7 order. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P7 is cryptic, vague, and laconic in nature. None of the contentions advanced by the petitioner in the appeal memorandum was taken note of by the 1st respondent. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P4 and P7 orders issued by the 2nd and 1st respondents respectively and quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari any other writ, order or direction. ii) Declare that the petitioner cannot be made liable for the estimated loss in the absence of any finding to the effect that there was actual shortage of stock in the godown of the Kerala Civil Supplies Corporation and that the petitioner was personally responsible for any such ``` WP(C)NO.40578OF2018 ``` ``` 4 ``` loss. iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to treat the period of suspension undergone by the petitioner as duty for all purposes. 4. A statement has been filed by the respondents controverting the contention of the petitioner herein. It is stated therein that the entire aspects were adverted to by the 1st respondent while rejecting the appeal. The respondents have also detailed the manner in which the rice was seized and the manner in which the responsibility was cast upon the petitioner herein. 5. I have heard Sri. K.T Shyam Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Smt. R Lakshmi Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. At the outset itself, Smt.Lakshmi Narayanan points out that the amount ordered to be paid by the petitioner herein has been paid vide challan dated 14.2.2023. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was not granted promotion solely due to the pendency of this writ petition. 7. In response, Sri. K.T Shyam Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had remitted the amount under protest. The learned counsel would refer to the order passed by the 1st respondent in appeal, and it is submitted that a one-line order has been passed without adverting to any of the contentions. It is pointed out ``` WP(C)NO.40578OF2018 ``` ``` 5 ``` by the learned counsel that the prosecution proceedings against the 1st accused have culminated in Ext.P9 judgment, wherein the learned Magistrate, after adverting to the contentions and the evidence let in, has held that there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate that the rice found in the vehicle on 5.3.2014 is the rice that was meant for distribution through the Public Distribution System. The learned Magistrate has also held that neither the Assistant Supply Officer nor the Investigating Officer has explained how there was an excess of rice in the godown. In such a situation, it is questionable whether the rice supposedly seized could have actually come from the godown. The learned counsel would then refer to enquiry report, a copy of which is produced as Annexure R1(b), and it is pointed out that the contention of the petitioner that there was no shortage of raw rice and excess stock is seen on stock verification by the authority concerned was not properly appreciated by the Enquiry Officer. According to the learned counsel, it was without taking note of the specific contention raised by the petitioner herein with regard to excess stock that the enquiry report was passed. The learned counsel would also refer to Ext.P8, and it is argued that the Junior Assistant Officer has also held that there is no variation of stock. According to the learned counsel, none of these relevant aspects were adverted to by the 1st respondent while passing Ext.P7 order. ``` WP(C)NO.40578OF2018 ``` ``` 6 ``` 8. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. 9. Exhibit P4 is the order passed by the Regional Manager. The said order has been confirmed in appeal by the Additional general Manager. The Appellate order reads as under: “�ീമതി�ിയസിശ�ർ േനർകാഴ്ച സമയ�്ഉ�യി�ിരി��വാദഗതികൾ ഒ�ംതെ�പരിഗണി���ത�. സ�്ൈളേ�ാ�്ഉ�ായ 1,57,332/- �പന��ിെ� പ�തി �കയായ 78,666/�പ �ീമതി �ിയ സി ശ�റിൽ നി�് ഈടാ�വാൻ ഉ�രവാ�ിയേമഖലമാേനജർ പാല�ാടിെ�ഉ�രവ്നിലനിർ�ിെ�ാ�ു അ�ീൽ നിരസി�ഉ�രവാ��.” 10. It would be evident from the order passed by the Additional General Manager, not even a semblance of a reason has been given for rejecting the valid contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal preferred by her. It was the duty of the appellate authority to consider the contentions and to provide at least some reasons for rejecting the appeal. As held by the Apex Court in **Divl. Forest Officer v. Madhusudhan** **Rao[1]** , though an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing her appeal and/or revision. Though no detailed reasons are required to be > 1 (2008) 3 SCC 469 ``` WP(C)NO.40578OF2018 ``` ``` 7 ``` given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even in order affirming the views of the lower forum. ## 11. The learned Magistrate, while acquitting the prime accused had held as follows in paragraph 14 of the judgment. “ There is no evidence to show that the rice found in the tempo van on 5/03/2014 is the rice meant for distribution through the public distribution system. There is nothing to connect the accused with the commission of the offense. No stock register of other documents are seized and produced o show that there is reduction of the stock in the godown concerned.” 12. Exhibit P8 is the stock position as of 15.03.2014. It would be profitable to note that the seizure of rice was on 5.3.2014. The authority concerned has endorsed in Exhibit P8 that there is no variation in stock as of 15.3.2014. 13. From the enquiry report, which is produced before this Court as Annexure R1(b), it appears that it was brought to the notice of the enquiry officer that there was no shortage of raw rice and excess stock was seen on stock verification by the TSO. However, the enquiry officer has rejected the contention by holding that unless the stock seized is not proven to be Supplyco stock, it has to be considered as excess stock of raw rice. 14. Having considered the entire facts, I am of the view that Exhibit P7 order issued by the 1st respondent cannot be sustained under ``` WP(C)NO.40578OF2018 ``` ``` 8 ``` law. Exhibit P7 will stand quashed. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter in light of subsequent developments and pass fresh orders in accordance with law with notice to the petitioner. Appropriate orders shall be passed after adverting to all contentions, expeditiously, in any event, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** IAP ``` WP(C)NO.40578OF2018 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40578/2018`** ``` PETITIONER’SEXHIBITS: ``` - `EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION DATED 21.7.2014` - `EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENSE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 22.8.2014` - `EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.10.2015 IN WPC NO. 15861/2015` - `EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.7.2016 IN CMP NO.2426/2015 IN C.C. NO.348/2014` - `EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 24.7.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.7.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT MADE BY THE STOCK CUSTODIAN ON 15.3.2014` - `Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO 348/2014 DATED 6/9/2019 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT THRISSUR` ``` RESPONDENTS’EXHIBITS: ``` ``` ANNEXURER1(a)THEPHOTOCOPYOFTHECIRCULARNO.73/2006 DATED16.8.2006 ``` ``` ANNEXURER1THEPHOTOCOPYOFTHEENQUIRYREPORT NO.B-7-1302/14DATED18.12.2015 ```