(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru in Application No.4593/2017 vide Annexure-A by confirming the order dated 22.02.2017 imposing a penalty under Rule 214 of KCS (CCA) Rules 1957 withholding sum of Rs.1,04,094/- out of DCRG vide Annexure A-6 and direct the respondent to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner in the ends of justice and etc.)

CAV Order

S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.

1. The present petition is filed by the applicant before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal ['Tribunal'] calling in question the correctness of the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the Tribunal in Application No.4593/2017.

2. The applicant before the Tribunal had challenged the Government Order dated 22.02.2017 which found that after the departmental enquiry, misconduct is said to have been committed and in light of superannuation, had ordered for reduction of pensionary benefits. Further, there was a direction to the employee to recover the monetary loss caused. Such order of punishment was challenged before the Tribunal which had rejected the Application as being devoid of merits.

3. The parties are referred to by their ranking before the Tribunal for the purpose of convenience.

4. The brief facts that are made out are, that the applicant was working as a Second Division Assistant in the Office of the Public Works Department Sub-Division, Sirsi during the period from 20.06.1988 to 29.06.1997. Thereafter, he was promoted as First Division Assistant on 30.06.1997 and handed over stock to Sri R.N.Jadhav, Second Division Assistant on 14.08.1997. The said Sri R.N.Jadhav upon taking over the charge sent a list detailing shortage in stock amounting to Rs.1,04,094.00.

5. The Articles of Charge was issued as regards shortage in stock which was quantified monetarily as Rs.1,04,094.00.

6. The inquiry initiated was assailed before the Tribunal in Application No.8267/2015 seeking expeditious conclusion of the inquiry and the same was disposed of with certain directions on 16.11.2015. The inquiry found that the stock till July 1997 was 16 mm Tor Steel of 8.885 Metric Ton. However, between 18.07.1997 and 14.08.1997, there appeared to be deficit of 4.897 Metric Ton of Tor Steel. The inquiry having ended in indictment of the applicant, the same was assailed before the Tribunal.

7. The inquiry report having been accepted and penalty imposed, the same was challenged before the Tribunal, which application came to be rejected. The Tribunal, while observing that the Government had taken a lenient view as regards recovering the amount of loss caused to the Government was of the opinion that no grounds were made out for interference with the order accepting the inquiry report and imposing the penalty.

8. The only contention raised by the applicant is that he was relieved on 30.06.1997 though charge was handed over on 14.08.1997 and during such period, access to the godown was by another employee and accordingly, the applicant could not be held liable. It was also contended that the Contractor had subsequently made good the deficit quantified in monetary terms and accordingly, there was no case made out to hold the applicant liable. It was also contended that the applicant was a junior Officer and that the charge of the godown was with the senior Officer of the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer and accordingly, the liability could not have been fastened on the applicant.

9. It is to be noticed that the departmental enquiry was a detailed exercise. The Second Division Assistant, Sri R.N.Jadhav who took over charge from the applicant on 14.08.1997 had submitted a written report regarding deficit in the stock of the godown. In terms of such communication, it was found that there was deficit in stock of 4.897 Metric Ton of 16 mm. Tor Steel. It was observed that between May 1997 to July 1997, there was stock of 8.885 Metric Ton of 16 mm. Tor Steel. However, on verification, after charge was handed over, it was noticed that there was deficit of 4.897 Metric Ton of 16 mm. Tor Steel.

10. It is further observed in the inquiry proceedings that the applicant had undertaken to make good the deficit, if any, when he was subsequently transferred to a different place in the year 2002.

11. The contention raised was that between 30.06.1997 and 14.08.1997, the godown was in charge of another official. However, such contention raised being factual in nature cannot be gone into at this stage of the proceedings.

12. The Tribunal has upheld the departmental inquiry proceedings and also rejected the contention that recovery through the Contractor would cure the misconduct. The Tribunal has rightly observed that mere contribution by the Contractors or monetary loss would not be sufficient to cure the lapse. In fact, this Court is in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that Government was lenient in imposing the penalty.

13. It would not be out of place to notice that the applicant was working as a Second Division Assistant at the same Division, i.e., PWD Division, Sirsi and was attached to the godown between 20.06.1988 to 29.07.1997 for about nine years. The difference in stock is borne out from records. The deficit in stock was noticed on the same date of taking over the charge, i.e. on 14.08.1997 and rightly after appreciation of evidence, the inquiry concludes that the applicant was responsible for such deficit. Such report having been accepted and not interfered with by the Tribunal, we find no reason to interfere with such finding.

14. In fact, an undertaking was given by the applicant to make good any deficit in stock and the applicant is rightly bound by such undertaking. The explanation that, between 30.06.1997 and 14.08.1997, there was somebody else incharge who was responsible for the godown cannot be an acceptable explanation, though the applicant was relieved on 30.06.1997, the formal handing over of charge was only on 14.08.1997 and therefore, the applicant would be solely responsible for deficit in stock even during such time.

15. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the departmental inquiry report as accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. We also do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

16. Accordingly, writ petition is rejected, affirming the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the Tribunal in Application No.4593/2017. The respondent is at liberty to enforce the Government Order imposing penalty at Annexure-'A6' dated 22.02.2017.