The Managing Director of the Corporation lacks authority to issue circulars imposing employee liabilities without adhering to disciplinary procedures outlined in the Service Rules, violating principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the employees of the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited (for short, the “respondent Corporation”), challenging certain circulars issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation as well as the steps taken on that basis.

2. The facts as culled out from W.P(C) No.32713 of 2019 are as under:

The petitioner was working as an abkari worker (Salesman) in an outlet of the respondent Corporation at Changanassery. He contends that he joined duty at the Changanassery outlet during the month of August, 2018 as a prelude for the Onam season sales. He points out that Ext.P4 complaint was presented to the Warehouse Manager, Kottayam, pointing out certain discrepancies in the stock. He further alleges that by Ext.P5 notice dated 08.05.2019, the respondent Corporation has arrived at a shortage in stock in the afore shop, and by Ext.P6 dated 01.06.2019, a liability of Rs.53,21,973/- is sought to be demanded from the petitioner as well as all others who were working in the afore shop. Ext.P6 also reveals that the Warehouse Manager was also directed to satisfy certain amounts. The petitioner points out that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in a writ petition filed by certain other noticees in Ext.P6, this Court directed the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation to have an adjudication, and thereafter, Ext.P7 has been issued rejecting the explanations offered. The petitioner also urges that he was not heard while issuing Ext.P10. The petitioner further states in this writ petition that the proceedings as above have been taken purely on the basis of Exts.P1 to P3 circulars issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation.

3. It is challenging the proceedings initiated as above, as well as the circulars issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation, on the basis of which the proceedings have been taken, that the petitioners have filed the captioned writ petition.

4. A counter affidavit dated 14.11.2022 is filed by the respondent Corporation seeking to justify the steps taken as above.

5. I have heard Sri.Deepu Thankan, Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash, Smt.V.Sethukutty Amma and Smt.Bhavana Velayudhan for the respective petitioners as also Sri.T.Naveen, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

6. Sri.Deepu Thankan, the learned counsel would contend that:

i. The services of the workers under the respondent Corporation are to be governed by the Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Limited Employees Service Rules, 1986 (for short, the “Service Rules”) framed by the said Corporation. He refers to various provisions of the Service Rules and contends that the Rules provide for detailed procedure when misconduct on the part of the employees of the respondent Corporation is detected. He further points out that the Rules provide for a detailed procedure under which the employee concerned is getting an opportunity to prove his innocence as against various allegations, and ultimately, if any proceedings are finalized, the employee has a remedy of appeal, again prescribed by the Rules.

ii. In the light of the afore, he contends that the circulars at Exts.P1 to P3 have no legs to stand. He contends that the liability is being fixed on the employee in a summary manner.

iii. He points out that the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation is not having any power or authority to issue circulars in the nature of Exts.P1 to P3.

7. Sri.Ajith Prakash, the learned counsel would contend that:

i. Some of the employees have already retired during 2020-21 and even r