T. Vaikuntam vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3706 Tel

Telangana High Court

T. Vaikuntam vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 28 May, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

             WRIT PETITION No. 1614 OF 2020

O R D E R:

Heard Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for

petitioner and Sri M. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

2. The grievance of petitioner is to the inaction of

respondents in not paying his terminal benefits consequent to

the retirement dated 31.01.2017, hence, he seeks a

consequential direction to respondents to pay terminal as well

as other benefits.

3. The brief facts of the case are:- Petitioner was

appointed as a Packer-cum-Helper in 1981; thereafter, he was

promoted as Sales Assistant and Junior Manager in 2009. It is

stated, during physical verification held on 31.03.2010, 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 available employee in the unit was made responsible

for the said deficit. Charges were framed against by the

Divisional Marketing Officer, Secunderabad dated 08.11.2020.

They are:

Charge No.1: That, he has created physical stock deficit of Rs.6,41,653.20 ps as on 31.3.2010 in Sanga Reddy SE, and caused

loss to the APCO Society which is gross misconduct governing Rule No.43 XI of the Special Bye-laws of APCO employees.

Charge No.2: He has failed to maintain stock ledges up-to date manually or the computerization of stock position as on 31.3.2010 intentionally to cover deficit.

Though enquiry was initiated by central office vide

proceedings dated 09.03.2011 and Enquiry Report dated

25.04.2011 was submitted, at the instance of petitioner, the

issue was referred for conducting de-novo enquiry duly

appointing another Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated

18.05.2015. The reason appears to be at the behest of the letter

addressed by petitioner stating that at the time of joining of

Sri V. Sudarshan, Senior Manager, Sri. T. Vykuntam (petitioner

herein) had handed over stocks and as per the stock list, the

said Sudarshan alone was holding the charge.

The Enquiry Officer afforded opportunity of cross-

examination to both the sides and after a detailed enquiry, gave

his findings in vide report dated 23.06.2015, relevant portion of

the same is extracted hereunder:

" The charged employee has requested the complaint Authority to arrange for the re-verification of the transactions of the unit ever since joining of Sri.V. Sudharsan, Sr. Mangar in APCO SE, Sangareddy. The Management Representative/Management Witness did not presented any statements of re-verifications which reveals that no re-verification got conducted.

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 newly transferred place i.e., Abids HLH, since the HOC, TOC is inevitable 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 (leave/absconding). Hence it cannot be decided evidently that both worked with 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 office could have procedurally insisted him first to join at APCO SE, Sangareddy and got relieved from the stock responsibility 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 while going on leave or before joining at new place i.e., Abids HLH, procedurally by 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 evidently 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. Vykuntam for keeping the unit opened without its closure and just because of presence of Sri. T. Vykuntam, Sales Assistant during physical stock verifications 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 office of the Divisional Marketing Officer, vide his letters dated 19.8.2009, 11.11.2009, 28.1.2010 and 1.12.2010 and so on. While, so the office would have cautiously acted and asked Sri. V. Sudharsan, Sr. Manager to first to get relieved from APCO SE, Sangareddy procedurally by following HOC/TOC process, which is invariable in the

commercial units. Instead it appears that the office was kept quite and simply allowed Sri. V. Sudharsan to joint at Abids HLH directly, without observing HOC/TOC process at Sangareddy SE.

As per the R(a) Form in dt.31.3.2007 it is evidently clear that Sri. T. Vykuntam has handed over the stocks to Sri. V. Sudharsan, Sr. Manager.

It is not established whether Sri. V. Sudharsan Sr. Manager on leave/absconding handed over the charge to stocks to Sri. T. Vykuntam procedurally by way of HOC/TOC process.

It is also not established whether re-verification of accounts has been conducted in APCO SE, Sangareddy, ever since, joining of Sri. V. Sudharsan Sr. Manager in APCO SE, Sangareddy.

The denovo enquiry is to be conducted from the very beginning altegother afresh. Where as the Management Representative has just relied upon the written statement of the earlier Management Representative of the Domestic Enquiry conducted earlier, which the charged employee had objected that, earlier Domestic Enquiry was not proper and injustice was done to him.

In the light of the views as above holding Sri. T. Vykuntam, the then Jr. Manager for the deficit appears not correct, since, as per the R(a) from dt. 31.3.2007, the charged employee did not hold the responsibility on the stocks held in APCO SE, Sangareddy, ever since the charge of the stocks taken by Sri. V. Sudharsan, the then Sr. Manager, Sangareddy SE.

Since, the R(a) Form dt.31.3.2010 is signed by the charged employee under protest duly mentioning the verification properly not done and Management is required to cause re-verification in the presence of charged employee in the interest of natural justice. As the R(a) Form itself controversial the charge relied upon such controversial R(a) Form will not stand on its own. Hence I conclude that the charge No.1 is held as not proved.

Similarly, the version of the Charged employee is that, he do not know the maintenance of the daily transactions in the unit and he was unaware of the computerization. The computerization in APCO was established in 2000-2001. Further, when, he is unware of computerization, he cannot be demanded for the computerization of stock position. During the course of Denovo Enquiry, the Management Representative/Management

Witness have not established clearly that, the charged employee possess thorough knowledge of computerization in the units, it is improper to allege that, the charged employee failed 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 No.2 has no validity and hence it is held as not proved.

Sd/-

Enquiry Officer.

Respondent thereafter did not initiate any action

and did not pass any orders. Meanwhile, petitioner's

suspension was raised and he was reinstated into service

pursuant to the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated

24.07.2014 and he was continued in service. That being so, he

attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2016. The 2nd

respondent had also filed criminal case for alleged

misappropriation in C.C.No.785 of 2012 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 filed counter-affidavit reiterating the

contents mentioned in the Enquiry Report dated 23.06.2015

and in addition, it is their specific contention that petitioner is

facing disciplinary case and charges were framed against him

and charges pending for disposal is due to fresh de novo enquiry

into the charges as such on conclusion of Court cases and

disciplinary proceedings only settlement of terminal benefits

would be decided.

5. Today, this Court allowed Writ Petition No.21828 of

2019 by a reasoned order. In the said Writ Petition, petitioner

challenged initiation of fresh de novo enquiry proceedings dated

25.05.2017. The said proceedings was set aside.

6. In the light of the reasoned order passed in Writ

Petition No.21828 of 2019, this Writ Petition is also allowed

directing respondents to pay terminal benefits to petitioner

consequent to his retirement on 31.10.2016. No costs.

7. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any

shall stand closed.

-------- ----------------------------- NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

28th May 2025

ksld