APHC010010302005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-5 AT AMARAVATI [3506]

WRIT PETITION NO: 14491 of 2005 Syed Ismail, & 9 Others and Others ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

The Food Corporation Of India 8 Others and ...Respondent(s)

Others **********

Advocate for Petitioner: K UDAYA SRI Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): CHINTALAPUDI LAKSHMI KUMARI, O UDAYA KUMAR, B ANJANEYULU CORAM : S RI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 9th February 2026 The Court made the following order:

Present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…..to issue an order, direction or Writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ (i) declaring the proceedings of District Manager in No.V & S4(9)/2003 dated 05.08.2003 including the consequential proceedings No.V & S4(9)/2003-Eluru dated 07.06.2004 as illegal and arbitrary; (ii) declaring the Proceedings of the Sr. Regional Manager and the Appellate Authority in No.Vig 5(12)/2005-A.P. dated 10.11.2004 is illegal and arbitrary;

(iii) declaring proceedings No.Vig 5/2005-A.P. dated 10.05.2005 in so far as not allowing Review Petition in to as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to make any recovery from the salaries of the petitioners duly directing for refund of the amounts recovered from the petitioners and pass other order or orders in the interest of justice.”

2. This writ petition is preferred by ten petitioners. However, perusal of the prayer mentioned supra challenges only one set of orders passed in favour of one of the petitioners. Firstly, all petitioners could not have preferred a joint writ petition, as the cause of action and the proceedings issued against each petitioner were quite different and distinct. Even otherwise, the prayer does not specifically lay challenge to the respective orders passed in the case of each and every petitioner. Be that as it may, this Court is proceeding to consider the matter on merits.

3. (a) Petitioners are claimed to have worked as Assistant Grade-I and Assistant Grade-II Officers with the respondents, Food Corporation of India, at the relevant point of time. They were discharging duties at the storage depot, Eluru, under the administrative control of the District Manager, Tadepalligudem. Petitioners were in charge and responsible for the stocks stored at various depots belonging to the respondent corporation, under their jurisdiction.

(b) Initially, the District Manager, Tadepalligudem, is stated to have issued a show cause notice dated 23.04.2003, calling upon petitioners to submit their explanations on the allegations of abnormal storage loss, as noticed in the food storage depot at Eluru during the period July 1998 to October 1998. Petitioners stated to have submitted their explanations on 13.05.2003 denying the allegations. However, petitioners were served with a charge memo dated 05.08.2003 purported to be under Regulation

60 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971.

(c) The main charge levelled against all the petitioners was that they were responsible for abnormal storage losses either on account of lack of proper supervision or negligence in maintaining the stocks. Petitioners have submitted explanations refuting the charges. Eventually, the District Manager, Tadepalligudem, passed orders dated 07.06.2004 concluding the inquiry and has imposed penalty of recovery of the amount to be paid in 36 monthly installments. A common order stated to have been passed setting out reasons for arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. The total amount of loss assessed at Rs.35,11,515/- stated to have been apportioned among 15 employees who were responsible for maintaining the stocks, which included petitioners as well. Subsequently, petitioners challenged the said orders in W.P.No.10470 of 2004. Initially, though an interim order was granted, later the writ petition came to be disposed of by relegating the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal, and the appellate authority was direc