IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 16659 of 2000(G)
1. S.JAYAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES COPN.LTD.
... 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
reliefs:
“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
Director.
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
heard.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
acd
O.P.No.16659/2000 4
O.P.No.16659/2000 5
