The petitioner was in the cadre of Deputy Manager in the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation [for short Corporation]. He has attained age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.09.2010.

2. On 18.01.2011 respondent corporation ordered for recovery of Rs.2,46,130/from the petitioner’s terminal benefits with reference to shortage of storage materials when the petitioner was working at Mandya during the period January 1999 and May to July 1999, vide Annexure A.

3. The petitioner requested the corporation to release withheld amount on 27.3.2011. In pursuance of the same the Respondent Corporation requested the Food Corporation of India to set right the anamoly of storage shortage on 3.6.2011. Even the petitioner requested the Food Corporation of India to set right the alleged shortage of storage materials on 13.06.2011 and 10.8.2011. Further respondent –Corporation wrote one more letter to the Food Corporation of India to regularize the anamoly of storage materials on 10.8.2011. Followed by some more communications by the Corporation to the Food Corporation of India vide communications dated 19.08.2011, 30.08.2011, 04.11.2011 & 9.11.2011. Despite these factual aspects the Respondent corporation ordered for recovery of alleged loss of storage materials from the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of recovery presented the above petition.

4. The petitioner contended that he is governed by the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short “The KCSR”) and order of recovery of any loss to the Corporation is without notice and so also without enquiry. He has also contended on merits of the matter like storage loss occurred beyond the control of Warehouseman. It was further contended that storage loss occurred due to natural causes like mode of weighing and fluctuations in atmospheric humidity. Therefore the alleged allegation do not relate to misconduct or any negligent act or omission on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner also urged that the alleged incident relates back to 1999 and he has retired from service on 30.09.2010 and till this day no notice and enquiry has been conducted in respect of alleged loss to the Corporation. Therefore the impugned action is highly belated one. Further it is pointed out that under Rule 214 (2) (b) of the KCSRs there is a bar to initiate disciplinary proceedings if the alleged incident relates back to 4 years old. The over all submission of the petitioner is that the manner in which the proceeding was conducted i.e., issuance of the impugned order was violative of principles of natural justice and caused serious prejudice to him. The petitioner in support of the petition cited decision of this court wherein the petition is allowed while quashing the order of recovery on the ground of no notice and enquiry. [W.P. No.61 of 2013 (SRes) –Sri.B.K.Shivarame Gowda v. Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation].

5. The Respondent corporation filed statement of objection to the aforesaid petition in which it was contended that despite several notices to the petitioner about shortage of storage materials, he has not furnished explanations with necessary material aspects. Further alleged on merits of the case also. The respondent –corporation has not disputed about the writing of letters to the Food Corporation of India for reconciliation of storage materials or to write off sanction and to release the recovered amount. It was admitted that no enquiry has been held and expressed that departmental enquiry would be conducted as per rules. Further it is stated that petitioner has been informed that the amount so recovered by the Food Corporation of India would be deducted from his salary and other terminal benefits. For such proposal the petitioner did not answer, which indicates that the petitioner has accepted the order of the Respondent Corporation.

6. The petitioner’s counsel vehemently argued that the Corporation in support of the impugned action has not produced any material.