S. Baskaran vs The Senior Regional Manager

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The petitioner was formerly working as Junior Assistant on deputation, in TASMAC between 12.09.2003 and 21.06.2004. Subsequently he was repatriated back to his parent Department at TANSI Limited, Pettai, Tirunelveli. The third respondent, the Chairman cum Managing Director of TANSI Limited, issued an order in Proceedings 2595/EB1/08 dated 15.06.2009 directing to recover a sum of Rs. 98,326/- from the petitioner under three heads, as directed by the Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC Limited, Madurai, vide his letter dated 03.12.2007. The details of the amount to be recovered are as under:

1.

Recovery towards non-remittance of rental collection from the parties.

Rs. 50,745.00

2.

Recovery towards Excess drawal of salary payable to shop supervisor /Salesman and Assistants of Bars (for the period from January 04 to April 04)

Rs. 12,399.00

3.

Recovery towards payment of Rent advance to shops for the period from 12.09.2003 to 21.06.2004

Rs. 35,182.00

Total...

Rs. 98,326.00

Challenging the above order of the third respondent, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

Notice ordered by this Court on 01.09.2009 was served on the respondents on 01.10.2009. But the third respondent has not chosen to appear before this Court. Therefore, this Court is not able to know the stand of the third respondent. Since the third respondent has issued the impugned order, only to enforce the directions of the first respondent, this Court proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

The first respondent has filed a counter dated 11.12.2009.

According to the petitioner, no order of recovery was ever passed against the petitioner in respect of the above three items. Therefore, the recovery sought to be made from the petitioner is illegal, it is contended. In the counter filed by the first respondent dated 11.12.2009 in paragraph-4 it is stated that the respondents 1 and 2 issued show-cause notices on 14.10.2004, 01.09.2005, 13.04.2005 and thereafter directed the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs. 9,010/-, Rs. 41,735/-, Rs. 50,745/- and Rs. 12,399/-. It is further stated that after receipt of the above said show-cause notices, the petitioner appeared before the second respondent, and the second respondent gave him sufficient opportunity for perusing the records and giving explanation. But the petitioner did not take care to peruse the records. Thereafter, on 11.08.2004, the petitioner appeared before the second respondent for enquiry and only thereafter, the order of recovery came to be passed, it is stated.

Since in the counter it is not stated as to whether any opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and charge was framed and any enquiry was conducted before passing the order of recovery, this Court wanted to peruse the original records, but the records were not produced by respondents 1 and 2. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC Limited, Madurai, would clarify the same. Therefore, by order dated 10.09.2014, this Court directed the first respondent to be present before this Court. Accordingly, he appeared before this Court today and he has filed additional counter dated 10.09.2014. It is stated in paragraph-6 of the additional counter, as follows:

I respectfully submit that hence, after verifying all records and the explanation submitted by the petitioner three separate final orders were passed by the first respondent on three different dates, one order was by his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 665/2004/A dated 01.11.2004 that direct the petitioner remit the misappropriation amount Rs. 50,745/- in respect of non-remittance of rental collection from the concerned parties and other two orders were vide proceedings Na.Ka. No. 1338/2005/- A and Na.Ka. No. 1338/2005/- A dated 13.04.2005 that direct the petitioner remit the misappropriation amount Rs. 12,399/- and Rs. 35,182/- one was in respect of excess drawal of salary payable to shop supervisor/salesman and Assistant of Bar (for the period from January 2004 to April 2004) and another one was with regard to misappropriation of payment of rent advance to shops for the period from 12.09.2003 to 21.06.2004 respectively and the petitioner had committed misappropriation totally sum of Rs. 98,326/-. Why three different final orders were passed? Because of misappropriation of Serial No. 1 as below he alone responsible, Serial No. 2 as below his divided share with one other person and Serial No. 3 as below his divided share with six other persons. It is the reason three recovery orders passed by the first respondent against the petitioner.

Since it has been stated in the counter that a sum of Rs. 50,745/- has been misappropriated by the petitioner, this Court wanted the Senior Regional Manager to explain as to how such misappropriation had occurred at the end of the petitioner.

Today, when the matter was taken up, the respondents 1 and 2 are present along with the original records.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and I have also perused the records carefully.

As I have already extracted, the third item is in respect of Rs. 50,745/- towards payment of rent advance from the parties. In this regard, by way of typed set, the first respondent has produced the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka. No. 1338/2005/A dated 13.04.2005. This order shows that for housing the TASMAC shop, a sum of Rs. 1,04,312/- was paid to the building owner as rent advance and when the shop was closed and shifted to a different place, the said rent advance was not collected from the owner of the building and remitted to the TASMAC account. This amount has been equally divided among Mr. A. Arthurraj, District Manager, Mr. S. Gopalakrishnan, Assistant Manager, Mr. S. Baskaran, Junior Assistant, Mr. A.T. Baskaran, District Manager In-charge, Mr. K. Ramadass, District Manager In-charge, Mr. Lakshmanan, Assistant Manager and Mr. Maripandi, Junior Assistant. The amount has been ordered to be recovered in the following ratio:

Name

Designation

Amount (Rs. )

A. Arthurraj

District Manager

33,215/-

S. Gopalakrishnan

Assistant Manager

25,432/-

S. Baskaran

Junior Assistant

35,182/-

A.T. Baskaran

District Manager In-charge

1,467/-

K. Ramadass

District Manager In-charge

1,178/-

Lakshmanan

Assistant Manager

7,500/-

Maripandi

Junior Assistant

339/-

TOTAL

1,04,313/-

The Senior Regional Manager, who is present before this Court would tacitly admit when he was enquired by this Court that the amount of Rs. 1,04,312/- was not at all received back from the owners of the building by any of the above persons. Thus, according to him, the allegation is that the amount was not collected from the building owner so as to remit the same into the account of the TASMAC.

But the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that it is a case of misappropriation. According to him, the rent advance of Rs. 1,04,312/- was recovered from the building owner and out of the same, the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 35,182/-. When he was asked to explain as to how this allegation of misappropriation can be substantiated, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that it is based on the Auditor''s Report. When the Auditor''s Report was brought to the notice of the Senior Regional Manager, he states that the Auditor''s Report says that the amount was not at all received back from the building owner. Thus, it is quite obvious that before this Court, the Senior Regional Manager takes one stand, whereas his counsel takes a different stand. It is really strange but also shocking that the learned counsel for the first respondent argues a different case than what is placed before this Court by the first respondent. At any rate, I find that there was no enquiry held and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 35,182/-. If the loan amount was not received back from the building owner, the amount should have been demanded by the authorities concerned for recovery of the same from the building owner. Instead of that, it is not known as to how all the people who were working in the office have been directed to pay the amount in equal moieties. Therefore, I hold that it is illegal.

So far as Rs. 50,745/- is concerned, there has been no order passed at all by the first respondent for recovery of the said amount. Therefore, the letter of the first respondent directing the third respondent to recover Rs. 50,745/- is wholly incorrect and the same also deserves to be interfered with.

So far as Rs. 12,399/- is concerned, according to the counter, it was towards excess drawal of salary payable to shop Supervisor/Salesman and Assistants of the Bar for the period from January 2004 to April 2004. But no details have been given as to what was the amount drawn and what amount was paid and as to how the petitioner was responsible for the same. Here also there was no enquiry held and no final order was passed for recovery. So, this recovery also should go.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Since this occurrence had taken place in the year 2003, I am not inclined to give any liberty to the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.