DATED

21.08.2003 AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN 8B9 GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

The petitioner, a retired Assistant of the Karnataka

Handloom Development Corporation Limited (for short

<Corporation=) is before this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus

directing

the

second

respondent

to

consider

his

representation dated 18.02.2021 (Annexure-L) for settlement

of terminal benefits, such as Earned Leave encashment and

Death Relief Fund (for short <DRF=) amount along with

interest at the rate of 8% p.a., as per the Government Order

dated 21.08.2003 (Annexure-M).

3

2.

Heard learned counsel Sri.H.C.Sundaresh for petitioner;

Sri.M.V.Ramesh Jois, learned AGA for respondent No.1 as

well as learned counsel Sri.D.Nagaraj for respondent No.2.

Perused the writ petition papers.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner was working as Assistant in the second

respondent-Corporation and he retired from service on

attaining age of superannuation 30.06.2012. While the

petitioner was in service, a charge memo dated 08.06.2001

was

issued

and

Enquiry

Officer

was

appointed

on

03.09.2001. Thereafter, by order dated 23.03.2002, the

second respondent-Corporation withdrew the charge sheet

issued to the petitioner. Subsequent to retirement of the

petitioner, while settling the terminal benefits, out of Earned

Leave encashment, a sum of Rs.66,021/- and out of DRF

amount, a sum of Rs.18,531/- was withheld and the

petitioner was directed to remit the balance amount of

Rs.4,68,956/- towards stock shortage recovery. Learned

4

counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amount

indicated at Annexure-F dated 23.07.2013 is not the amount

determined in any enquiry proceedings and the charge memo

issued was withdrawn. Without conducting any enquiry nor

determining the amount, the respondent-Corporation would

not get jurisdiction to recover the so-called shortage amount

from the terminal benefits of the petitioner. Thus, learned

counsel would pray for a direction to consider his

representation dated 18.02.2021 (Annexure-L) to release the

withheld amount of Rs.84,553/- from out of his terminal

benefits with interest.

4.

Learned counsel Sri.D.Nagaraj for second respondent

appears through video conference and submits that the

enquiry instituted against the petitioner by issuance of charge

memo dated 08.06.2001 was withdrawn subsequently by

notification dated 23.03.2002. Learned counsel fairly

submits that no enquiry is conducted nor the amount

indicated in Annexure-F dated 23.07.2013 is not determined

5

in any enquiry or proceedings. Further, learned counsel

would submit that the petitioner would not be entitled for

interest as claimed by him in the petition. Thus, he prays for

passing appropriate order in the writ petition.

5.

The admitted facts are that the petitioner retired from

service as Assistant on 30.06.2012. While he was in service,

a charge memo dated 08.06.2001 was issued to the

petitioner. The said charge memo was withdrawn by

notification dated 23.03.2002. The charge against the

petitioner in terms of charge memo dated 08.06.2001 was

misappropriation of amount of Rs.79,320/- and Stores

shortage of Rs.4,59,127/- during his working as Stores in-

charge. Admittedly, neither enquiry nor proceedings is

conducted against the petitioner to determine the loss. The

amount

indicated

therein

is

not

determined

in

any

proceedings.

Without

determining

the

amount

of

misappropriation or stores shortage, no recovery could be

effected from the petitioner.

6

6.

Annexure-F/communication dated 23.07.2013 indicates

recovery of a sum of Rs.66,021/- from E.L. encashment and

Rs.18,531/- from DRF amount. The recovery of those

amounts is without jurisdiction, since the said amount is not

determined in an enquiry or proceedings. Without determining

the amount, no recovery could be effected.