Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2000

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any the proceedings No. other appropriate writ declaring P1/94(1)/2000-SRPT dated 27.10.2k of respondent no.3 imposing the penalty of recovery of Rs.44032/0 at 18% for keeping the amount of Rs.10 lakhs in the Bank from 31.3.2k till 29.5.2k is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass such further or other orders as the Hon' ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents : SMT .B.G.UMA DEVI T he Court made t he following : ORDER : The petitioner is a Senior Assistant, working in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation at Suryapet Depot in Nalgonda District. In the writ petition, he has challenged the final order, dated 27 th October 2000, passed in Proceedings No.P1/94(1)/2000- SRPT, by which, a penalty amount of Rs.44,032/- was ordered to be recovered from him.

2. Alleging that an amount of Rs.10 lakhs was kept idle in the bank, creating shortage of funds, resulting in inconvenience to the Corporation, a charge was framed against the petitioner. The charge framed in the charge sheet, dated 29th May 2000, in Proceedings No.P1/94(1)/2000-SRPT, reads as under : “You have kept 10 lakhs idle in the bank towards funds, creating scarcity of shortage of funds in drawing of requisite amount transactions in day to day work, thereby concealing of facts which shown disobedience and gross negligence on your duties constitutes misconduct Reg.28(viii) & (ix) (a) of APSRTC Employees’ Conduct Reg.1963.” the said charge sheet was followed by a further recovery show cause notice, dated 05.09.2000, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.44,032/- shall not be recovered from him towards interest on the amount which he has kept idle in the bank without transferring the same to the regional office upto 29.05.2000. On 13.09.2000, the petitioner has filed a detailed explanation, stating that he was initially appointed as a Conductor in 1979 and was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant (Finance) in the year 1988. It is stated that he was entrusted with the job of compiling of salary bills of the Depot, as the Assistant Manager (Finance) was transferred in the month of January 2000, and he was asked to look-after the work of Assistant Manager (Finance) till alternate arrangements are made. It is further stated that as there was no sufficient staff in the Finance Department, apart from his regular work, he was also attending to the job of Assistant Manager (Finance), and he was also not aware of the total functions which were entrusted to the said post, and therefore, he has pleaded that there was no fault on his part so as to recover the amount of Rs.44,032/-. Inspite of such an explanation, the impugned order, dated 27 th October 2000, was passed, ordering to recover an amount of Rs.44,032/- towards interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount which the petitioner had not transferred immediately to the regional office.

3. In this writ petition, the main contention of the petitioner is that no inquiry was conducted before ordering for recovery of such a huge amount from him. It is his case that as he is only a Senior Assistant (Finance), he is not responsible for transferring the amount, which was the function of the Assistant Manager (Finance). It is stated that in any event, inspite of valid explanation filed by him, the impugned orders are passed without recording any findings. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that as much as the Corporation has suffered loss of Rs.44,032/- on account of negligence of the petitioner, the same is a minor penalty as per Regulation 8(v) of the APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’), and as such, the same is imposed by issuing a show cause notice.

4. The disciplinary proceedings on the employees of the Corporation are governed by the aforesaid Regulations, which are framed under Section 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Regulation 8 deals with penalties and Regulation 8(1)(v) empowers the Corporation to recover any amount of loss which is caused on account of negligence by any employee. Regulation 12 of the regulations provide procedure for imposing the penalties. Though the recovery of amount on account of negligence is not a penalty, for which, a regular inquiry is contemplated under Regulation 12(xiii) of the regulations, but the fact remains that even as per Regulation 12(1), a finding is to be recorded with regard to the negligence of the employee, which resulted in loss of any revenue to the Corporation, so as to recover the same from such an employee. Though it is alleged that the petitioner was negligent in not transferring the amount of Rs.10 lakhs, keeping the same idle in the bank without information to the regional office, but however, in his explanation, dated

13.09.2000, the petitioner has clearly denied the said charge and also explained the reasons for not transferring the said amount to the regional office. Though it is obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to record findings under Regulation 12(1) of the Regulations with reference to the explanation filed by the petitioner, but a perusal of the impugned order shows that not even a single reason is recorded for coming to the conclusion to recover amount from the petitioner. In that view of the matter, though some reasons are sought to be stated in the counter affidavit, but as much as no reasons are stated in the impugned order, it is well settled now that the reasons cannot be supplemented by way of an affidavit, more particularly, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the of Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner [1] , wherein it was held by the Apex Court that reasons cannot be supplemented by way of counter affidavit, so as to support the order which did not contain any reasons.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, as much as no reasons are recorded by the impugned order, the impugned demand cannot be sustained. Accordingly, aforesaid order, dated 27 th October 2000 passed in proceedings No.P1/94(1)/2000-SRPT, is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th November 2008 [1] AIR 1978 SC 851