High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or wrlt more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent in not paying the terminal benefits to the petitioner consequent to the retrrement dated 3111012016 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to pay terminal benefits to the petitioner and other benefits !- ,l lA NO: 'l OF 202t) Petition urrdr:r lection 1 51 CPC praying that in the circurr stances stated in the affidavit file.-r r support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the resporldi)i-ti to pay 50 % of terminal benefits i.e, Gra:uity and other benefits to the perti rone,r pending disposal of writ petition Counsel for the Petiti,rner: SRl. G. RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES DEPARTME:NT Counsel for the Rr:spc,ndent No.2: SRI M. SUDHAKAR REDDY, S,3 Counsel for the Resrrondent Nos. 3to4: SRI RAJU KUMAR RLtDR,r\ The Court made thr: I'ollowing: ORDER HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITIONNo. 16140F 20/20 OR DER: Heard Sri G' Ravi Mohan' learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M' Sudhakar Reddy' Iearned Standing Counsel for the 2nd resPondent' 2 The grievance of Petitioner is to the inaction of respondents in not paying his terminal benehts consequent to the retirement dated 3l 'Ol'2017 ' hence' he seeks a to respondents to pay terminal as well consequential direction as other benehts' The brief facts of the case are:- Petitioner was 3. appointed as a Packer-cum-Helper in 1981; thereafter' he was promoted as Sales Assistant and Junior Manager in 2OO9' It is stated, during physical verihcation held on 31'O3'2OiO' a deficit in stocks to the tune of Rs'6'41'653 20 ps' was noticed in APCO SE, Sanga Reddy and petitioner' the then Junior Manager' who was only availabie employee in the unit was made responsible for the said dehcit' Charges were framed against by the Divisional Marketing Of{icer' Secunderabad daled 08' 1 l'2O2O' They are: char ge N o_. r \-- 8s.6,41 ,653-2O Ps as on ' ^ rhh 1" 3 13."2..rf if t"X;l Hilr" !T: ^;tf t:'"':".T 2 loss ti r I r APCO Societv which is gross misconci uct lo\:er ning Rule No. +: \ ) '' the Special Bye laws of ApCO .-ptoy",,". - '" Chz r'g,: ) r, 2: He has failed to maintain stock )edpes marru:Llli ,)r the computerization of stock position ai on rntenr toli ll-r' to cover deficit. up ro date ] 1.3.2010 i T1 r>ngh enquiry was initiated by central oftice uide proceedingsi rlrrted 09.O3.2O11 and Enquiry Re.por,. dated 25.04.2O1I v.;rs submitted, at the instance of peritio;rer. the issue wa s r c f crrcd for conducting d.e-nouo enquir v duly appointing anlther Enquiry Officer uide pror:eedinqs, dated 18 05.2015 - re reason appears to be at the behest rf t}.e letter addresscd 1r\. )3titioner stating that at the time o. joi,ring of Sri V. Sudar sLr,rn. Senior Manager, Sri. T. Vykuntam (pe,itioner herein) had hrtrded over stocks and as per the stor;k 1i51. 15. said Sudarsl.i: r: tlone was holding the charge. 'T'1 rt trnquiry Officer afforded opportunrf _ cif cross_ examination [r; :oth the sides and after a detailed en(luir.., gave his flrnding:; .-t ttrje report dated 23.06.2015, relevant porlion of the same is e-:<t r r:ted hereunder: " I rtr: :lrarged employee has requested the cofl]plai tl At thoritl_ to arrange fo--r,, -,, L,erification of the transactions of the unil ever since joining of Sri.\ lirr,l|1215s6, Sr- Mangar in ApCO SE, Sangaredcl_r. The Management R. pre s ln ta tive/ Management Witness did not pr€sent )d anr_ statements o - . e r .: -iflcations which reveals that no rcvcdrs LrraL no re verrllcati )n got conducted. J Further it is also not established whether Sri- V Sudhrasan' Sr. Manager, quitted with the stock responsibility at APCO SE' Sangareddy either while goint on leave/ absconding or atleast before joining in nervly transferred place i.e., Abids HLH, since the HOC' TOC is inevitabte to decide the possessing or non possessing of the stock responsibility' As can be seen from R(a) form dated 31 03'2007' the charged employee had not signed at TOC on par with Sri V Sudharsan' Senior Manager, thereby it is construed that the charged employee discharged from the charge of stocks etcetera held in APCO SE' Sanga Reddy as on 31.03-2007 and appears that charged employee was not only attending to his duty as Sales Assistant but also representing Sri' V' Sudharsan' Senior Manager (teave/ absconding)' Hence it cannot be decided evidently that both worked r,vith joint responsibility in the unit' from 31 3 2007 onwards Further it is observed that' though sri V Sudharsan Sr' Manager went on leave / absconding as the case may be was transferred to Abids HLH, the offrce could have procedurally insisted him first to join at APCO SE, Sangareddy and got relieved from the stoci< responsibitity held by him in the unit, since, Sri' V Sudharsan holds responsibility on stocks during his leave period as he was not handed over the charge of stocks rvhile Abids HLH' procedurally by going on leave or before joining at new place i-e ' way of HOC/TOC Process' Sri V. Sudharsan, Sr Manager, while on leave/ absconding has not given the charge of stocks held in the unit as on the date of his leaving the unit, since it was not established in the Denovo Enquiry evidentlv by way of HOC/TOC lists that, Sri' V Sudharsan has handed over the charge to Sri. T. Vykuntam Giving keys of the unit to Sri T' Vvkuntam for keeping the unit opened wittrout its closure and just because of presence of Sri. T. Vykuntam, Sales Assistant during physical stock veriFrcations and representing Sri. V. Sudharsan, it cannot be deemed that' Sri- V' Sudharsan' Sr. Manager was free from joint stock responsibility at APCO SE' Sangareddy, Sri. T Vykuntam / charged employee has also dealt correspondence with the ofhce of the Divisional MaJketing Ofhcer' vide his Ietters dated 19.8.2009, 11112009' 2a'l'2}l} and 112'2010 and so on' While,sotheoflrcewouldhavecautiouslyactedandaskedSri.V. Sudharsan, S-r.. Manager to ftrst to get retieved from APCO SE' Sangareddy procedurally by following HOC/TOC process' which is invariable in the I \ 4 it appears that the offic-- \ commerci I I I rts. Instead srmpr-\ 1|:)!...r sri. V. sudr obsen,i r s r ( . 1.1.o c r."""""T:l:;".:;;;"' Sri r vr. ,. -.l;T::T:t:) Form in o"' Manager ": ir is evicren,ry crear that led over the stocks to Sri. v. Su.harsan, sr. ; ,, ::: l:r;::n" '.roo, j'J',j;".,:.""^ed whether sri. v. Su<r o., r.u","/ o r,..., J ; ;rT:",:; i is also not proceduri,,,, ., a-u .,r uoc7dr::**.::;;J;: ;"#fI" :::J.: ::,1. I ; r:t: rit jl i{"T:::r: "; ::,: il j I ;..: ;: "',;:*".::,ffi ': ;" *;H: ;:, :::,jI" ;: ,::?" T:, I ;;; :1, n statement of the e:rrlier Ma nagement Representa tir.l o h. Domest u'o'to conducted earlier, rvhi :h tl c charged '" employee l- ar I r; 1 j ;61sd ,n.r, earlier Domestic Enquiry was no1 pr oper and injustice \r.e s ri.rn: to him. ,f t: clenovo thethenr. ,]1,":::::i'..'"'views tiom dt. 3r.3.,,()17 th..n,t the stocks herrr i, irpco a taken by sri. \. sr rharsan, -lir ( c. the *, emproyee unJcr.,rc,"", or,1) and Manage:.nr.", , , ..ori.o charged emplo-r,:c, .r the ,r,,to controversial tr.r: ,- r rroe ..,rttt"t stand on its )\\ ! proved. {ence I as above hordin' eri r' \" urr' r' vi kuntam' o"lttt appears ttot -,.tt"'-"" "r."., e s ,e . the R(a) rrged emproyee did not no,o Sangareddy' ** "'""t,nltJ"i]::Hl:iT::: tn" tn"' Sr' Manager' Sangarerld,r s E. Form dt3132o1o is signerl b5'the:harged mentioning the verification -*'l prope'l'v n lt done to cause re-verific o' natural justice. T::ilJ: ^" upon such controversial R(a) Fcrrn r."ill not conclude that the charge No. r is rerd as not t[ ;. Sln ij. I ir. rhe tn" o.tr, transactions in fl not kno\r- trr" ,n, in t, r,a.,.;::::"t: unaware of t re ,:q,61p1.11..,1t estabrished in r2o1x) r.,0, o"tt' he cannot be ccr ri, r r:d for '] :',* or D .p,1 1, "r,,*ii..",#:fruUii::Lr,:ffi H# of the charsed emplove': is hat, he do '"" and te tvas in lrPcC u'as "otput..iru;:" ^'rr**.'a"" urther, when, na I I 1 I 5 Witness have not estabtished clearly that' the charged employee possess thorough knowledge of computerization in the units' it is improper to allege that, the charged employ"" *"0 to maintain the stock ledgers and their update- Moreover' decades back there was introduction of computerization in APCO and later questioning the maintenance of manual ledger appears unfair. Hence, Charge uo z ttt" no validity and hence it is held as not proved. sd/ Enquiry Officer' any actlon petitioner's Respondent thereafter did not initiate ancl did not pass any orders' Meanwhile' was raised and he to the Proceedings of the suspenslon reinstated into servlce 1st respondent dated That being so, he pursuant 24.07 .2014 and he was continued in servrce' 0.2016. The 2"d attained the age of superannuation on 31'1 respondent had also hled criminal case for alleged misappropriation in C'C No'785 of 2Ol2 before JFCM' Sangareddy. However' Addl' JFCM was pleased to pass judgment dated 26'11'2018 dismissing the said case and petitioner was acquitted 4 ResPondents liled counter-afhdavit reiterating the contents mentioned in the Enquiry RePort dated 23'06'2O15 and in addition, it is their specific contendon that Petitioner ts facing disciPlinary case and charges were framed against him and charges pending for disposal is due to fresh de no'o enqu1ry \ \ i i I I I i 6 rnto the clr rrges as such on conclusion of Corrrt ( jases and disciplirra r, 1>roceedings only settlement of ternrina I benefits u,ould be :ic:c i lr:d. 5. 2Ol9 bv:,r reasoned order. In the said Writ pe.titicn, challengr:d inrtiation of fresh de nouoenquiry proce:dings dated said proceedings was set aside. 1 odqy, 1fi15 Court allowed Writ petition No 2lg2g of

25.O5.2O1",. ,lie lretitioner

6. In the light of the reasoned order passcd in Writ Petition I\.kr 2132g ol 2019, this Writ petition rs also allowed directing r( jJ:)ondents to pay terminal benefits tc pe titioner consequent :o ir,s retirement on 31. 10.2O16. No oostri.

7. , r ,icqUen tly, shall stancl c lor;,:,1. Miscellaneous Applic,ttio;rs, if any To, //TRUE COPYII A \ \ I -arr-r. urr,oru lSTrlNT RE ALI BAIG GISTRAR SECTI()N OFFICER '- - -". -

1. The Principal :ier r:tarv Hanrlnnm- -^, -^..,,, J ^ ^ Hyderabad. r",,rr.onJ'!,#ndlooms and rextiled Departrrent Secretariat, ' #l:y^x:31,.: 5 j:;;i1"",,s"[fl,91fly,"3,,?3f.'l_"J3ffi.?u.l?l;, ,,,xi"1?,ll ^ P.haven. Naray;rnu I _rda, Hvderjha,J ' 5;:,.:iiY:''"T1,Xi'n"l',T.'oricer'rtlaloana state. Handroom v/eavers co- . N;;v;';;s,ii'i,],,,5illl'o' 3-5-770' rv Froor w;;;";:'""';;"";;, " rlfuu,u!€n3iilr,'li"ii%.": (F;/Enquiry orricer. rr - Naravanasuo,, -, ,, ,,,."0?d''Jti''iiilifuo]i'-":i'ol :li]93:i ;):','; ,..iilrtj;:[ 3. Une CC to SFiI G FIA\ :, *5 : : * : I r s #t s i{: f i i ii0]NHffiH#ii:trA],,, rl. 1 i ; r1,,,}ti ri ;x,lffiltel,ji ;.',"*' I H Re H l i,^E I e_? sc l Court for the Sfare . r i. -' I 4 E N r ir s h BSW BM HIGH COUR'r DATED:28l0tit?lzi ORDER WP.No.1614t of ZOZO i. .i .t - i; f1 24 JU|\J [E :\ (i\ i e 'J o o ( + ALLOWING TIIE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COL€TS 1 1x L b