S.Jayan vs Kerala State Beverages Copn.Ltd on 31 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
S.Jayan vs Kerala State Beverages Copn.Ltd on 31 August, 2010




OP.No. 16659 of 2000(G)

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.C.J.BALAKRISHNAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :31/08/2010

 O R D E R
                       S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                    O.P.No. 16659 OF 2000
            Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010

                        J U D G M E N T

The petitioners were Manager and Assistant Gr.I of the first

respondent. They were issued with Exts.P1 and P2 show causes

notices directing them to show cause why the value of stock

found short on stock verification should not be recovered from

them. The petitioners filed Exts.P3 and P4 explanation.

However, by Exts.P5 and P6 orders issued by the internal auditor,

the petitioners were directed to pay an amount of Rs.55,049/-

and Rs.73,399/- respectively towards liability for shortage in

stock. The petitioners filed appeals before the Board of Directors

which were rejected by Exts.P9 and P10 orders. Further appeals

to be forwarded to the Government, Exts.P11 and P12, were

refused to be forwarded to the Government on the ground that

there is no provision in the rule for an appeal to the Government.

Later on, the petitioners directly filed appeals before the

Government and although the Government heard the same, no

O.P.No.16659/2000 2

orders were passed. It is under the above circumstances, the

petitioners have filed this original petition seeking the following


“i) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate
writ, order or direction to quash Exhibits P5, p6, P9
and P10.

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ, order or direction declaring all the
steps taken by the 1st respondent to recover amounts
from the salary of the petitioners by the 1st respondent
on the basis of Exhibits P5, P6, P9 and P10 as illegal
and void”

Among other contentions, the petitioners would raise a specific

contention that Exts.P5 and P6 orders passed by the internal

auditor are without jurisdiction, in so far as there is no power

vested with an internal auditor to pass orders fixing liability on

the petitioners. It is further pointed out that Exts.P1 and P2

show cause notices were issued by the Managing Director

himself and therefore, the Managing Director was the

appropriate authority having powers to pass orders pursuant to

the show cause notices and therefore, clearly Exts.P5 and P6

orders passed by the internal auditor are unsustainable.

Although other contentions are also raised, I am not inclined to

go into the same, since this particular contention of the

petitioner finds favour with me. Admittedly, Exts.P1 and P2

O.P.No.16659/2000 3

show cause notices were issued by the Managing Director.

Exts.P5 and P6 orders have been passed by the internal

auditor, who does not have any powers to fix any liability on

the petitioners which power lies exclusively with the Managing


2. In the above circumstances, Exts.P5 and P6 orders

and Exts.P9 and P10 orders on the basis of the decision of the

Board of Directors are hereby quashed. The writ petition is

disposed of with a direction to the Managing Director to pass

fresh orders after considering the contentions of the petitioners

in Exts.P3 and P4 and affording them an opportunity of being




O.P.No.16659/2000 4

O.P.No.16659/2000 5

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information