The court determined that an engineer cannot be held liable for theft of materials placed at a worksite, emphasizing the impracticality of daily transport and absence of negligence.

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 11.08.2008, which was confirmed by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 13.03.2009 and the proceedings of the first respondent dated 09.10.2012, and also the consequential order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Memo No.03445/392/Adm.III/A.5/2013 dated 21.06.2013.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as Executive Engineer in Kolarpatty, 870 kgs of aluminium ingots / conductors, required for electrification work was kept in a private person's residence, where the working was going on. On 17.03.2005, the said quantity of 870 kgs of aluminium ingots was subjected to theft by two accused. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the police and the same was registered under Section 379 IPC., in Crime No.79 of 2005. Two persons were arrested and out of the theft quantity of 870 kgs, only 510 kgs. were recovered on 27.06.2005 at their instance.

3.Three years thereafter, on 09.07.2008, a charge memo was issued by the third respondent, seeking explanation regarding theft of the aluminium ingots / conductors.

4. Though a detailed reply was given by the petitioner that he has nothing to do with the alleged theft and only during the course of work, the materials were kept in the private residence, the said explanation did not find favour with the authorities and ultimately, an order was passed by the third respondent on 11.10.2008, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.75,800/-, which is the value of unrecovered aluminium ingots.

5. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the second respondent / appellate authority and requested the appellate authority to show indulgence and set aside the findings of the third respondent. However, the second respondent held that the findings of the disciplinary authority / third respondent is in order and rejected the appeal by order dated 13.03.2009. As a last resort, the petitioner has filed a mercy petition before the first respondent. However, his mercy petition was also rejected by proceedings dated 09.10.2012, and the order of recovery was confirmed. The second respondent vide proceedings dated 21.06.2013, yet again directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.75,800/-. Aggrieved by the findings and directions of the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. In the present writ petition, this Court by order dated 07.08.2013, has ordered interim stay and liberty was granted to the respondent to adjust the said amount of Rs.75,000/- from the retirement benefits, subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has nothing to do with the theft and he was diligent in his duty as an engineer. The materials were placed in the premises of the residence of a private party at the place of work, which was subjected to theft and the petitioner had nothing to do with the theft. In fact, he lodged a complaint with the police, leading to arrest of two persons and thereafter, part of the material was recovered. The two persons who indulged in the theft, had infact murdered the wife of the petitioner for lodging a complaint, which is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents.

8. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the materials which were given for the purpose of electrification or any other works, by the Department, in fact had to be placed in the godown and not at the place where the work was not going on. For the reason o