E. Immanuel Vs. Managing Director Apsrtc and ors.

E. Immanuel vs Managing Director Apsrtc and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Jan 22, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/438613

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/438613
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: S. Ananda Reddy, J.
Decided On: Jan 22, 2003
Case Number: WP No. 62 of 2000
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service - discreet enquiry - Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 - employee managing filling of oil and its accounts found responsible for shortage of oil in enquiry conducted by independent committee appointed by competent authority - accused obtained opportunity for explanation ...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

E. Immanuel

Advocate G. Ravi Mohan, Adv.

Respondent

Managing Director Apsrtc and ors.

Advocate P. Vinayaka Swamy, SC for APSRTC

Legal References

Reported In: 2003(5)ALD115; 2003(2)ALT128

Excerpt

service - discreet enquiry - andhra pradesh (telangana area) public societies registration act, 1350 - employee managing filling of oil and its accounts found responsible for shortage of oil in enquiry conducted by independent committee appointed by competent authority - accused obtained opportunity for explanation and enquiry proceedings seems proper - held, order for recovery of loss from salary of employee in such proceedings justified. - - 7. the impugned order clearly shows that there was an independent enquiry by the committee appointed by the competent authority, which found that the petitioner was responsible for the shortage of hsd oil......is that the recovery of the said amount is a major punishment and as there was no proper enquiry conducted, as provided under the regulations, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.4. a counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents disputing the allegations made by the petitioner. it is stated that when there was a shortage of oil, a committee was appointed to investigate into the said affair and thereafter based on the report of the said committee, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, proposing to recover the value of the said shortage of oil. though the petitioner submitted his explanation, as the said explanation was not satisfactory to the disciplinary authority, it is ordered to recover the said amount being the cost of 2828 litres of hsd oil, in instalments from the salary of the petitioner.5. the learned counsel for the respondents contended that there are no merits warranting interference with the impugned order.6. heard both sides and considered the material on record.7. the impugned order clearly shows that there was an independent enquiry by the committee appointed by the competent authority, which found that the petitioner was responsible for the shortage of hsd oil. thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued and after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the amount was sought to be recovered from the petitioner in instalments. therefore, there are absolutely no justifiable grounds, warranting interference with the impugned order.8. therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S. Ananda Reddy, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 8-11-1999 under which an amount of Rs. 31,613-88 paise is sought to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in 65 equal instalments.

2. According to the petitioner, he was working as Assistant Depot Clerk from 1974, though he worked earlier to it as Conductor. Thereafter he was promoted as Traffic Inspector Grade-in and further as Grade-II. As on the date of the writ petition, he was working as Assistant Traffic Manager in the Office of the Headquarters of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the petitioner was entrusted with the duties to get oil from the Indian Oil Corporation and to fill the same in the ground tank and to maintain accounts for the same. The petitioner has to furnish the accounts to the Respondents for every 15 days. In the course of discharging his duties the authorities found that there was a shortage of HSD Oil. Therefore, a regular enquiry was conducted by the Committee, after issuing a show-cause notice and the Committee found that the petitioner was responsible for the said shortage and therefore, the impugned order was passed.

3. The only contention of the petitioner is that the recovery of the said amount is a major punishment and as there was no proper enquiry conducted, as provided under the Regulations, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents disputing the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that when there was a shortage of oil, a Committee was appointed to investigate into the said affair and thereafter based on the report of the said Committee, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, proposing to recover the value of the said shortage of oil. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation, as the said explanation was not satisfactory to the disciplinary authority, it is ordered to recover the said amount being the cost of 2828 litres of HSD Oil, in instalments from the salary of the petitioner.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that there are no merits warranting interference with the impugned order.

6. Heard both sides and considered the material on record.

7. The impugned order clearly shows that there was an independent enquiry by the Committee appointed by the competent authority, which found that the petitioner was responsible for the shortage of HSD Oil. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued and after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the amount was sought to be recovered from the petitioner in instalments. Therefore, there are absolutely no justifiable grounds, warranting interference with the impugned order.

8. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2003 Same Parties E. Immanuel vs Managing Director Apsrtc and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge S. Ananda Reddy, J.

Service