1. Background / Context of Case
The appellant, Vijayakumar K.R. (56, Senior Assistant Grade-I), was acting as the “Stock Custodian” at the Maveli Store operated by SUPPLYCO in Kottayam.
Between 30.06.2019 and 18.11.2020, a stock audit was conducted. Auditors alleged severe stock deficits & discrepancies amounting to almost ₹ 10.71 Lakhs.
Core Alibi (The Covid quarantine defense):
“The Appellant fell sick & tested COVID-19 positive on 05.10.2020, forcing immediate quarantine. The Depot Manager handed temporary charge to two other staff members. Any stock loss or paperwork gaps after 05.10.2020 are on those individuals, not him!”
Despite submitting detailed explanations (Ext.P13 & P14) claiming manipulation of records by these temporary custodians, the Disciplinary Authority summarily rejected his pleas without any formal inquiry process.
2. Timeline of Key Exhibits & Orders
11.10.2022 | Exhibit P12 – Charge Memo
Disciplinary notice served proposing Major Penalty actions under SUPPLYCO Rule 147.
Exhibit P13 & P14 – Explanations
Vijayakumar files explanations denying fault, alleging manipulation, and requesting an opportunity to prove innocence.
26.09.2024 | Exhibit P15 – Disciplinary Order
Summarily orders him to pay ₹ 8,09,342.73. No domestic inquiry conducted!
Exhibit P16 & WP(C) 38147/2024
Appellant files a statutory appeal, gets a direction from a Single Judge ordering the Appellate Authority to consider it.
Exhibit P18 – Appellate Order
Disposed in a single breath: saying appellant’s arguments “lack credibility” with no reason to differ from findings.
01.07.2026 | WA No. 638 of 2025 (Present Verdict)
The Division Bench sets aside the Single Judge dismissal, setting aside Ext. P15 & P18 orders!
3. Core Legal Clash: SUPPLYCO Service Rules
The Department’s Jurisdictional Defense Strategy:
Advocate Molly Jacob asserted that because SUPPLYCO only ordered the “recovery of stock loss,” it should be treated as a Minor Penalty. Since it’s a minor penalty, a formal domestic enquiry is NOT mandatory.
Rule 143: Minor Penalties
- Censure
- Fine
- Withholding increments (max 3 years)
- Withholding promotion
⚠️ Note: No recovery of loss listed!
Rule 144: Major Penalties
- Withholding > 3 increments (with/without cumulative effect)
- Reduction to lower post or lower rank
- Compulsory retirement
- Removal & Dismissal from service
The Court’s Diagnostic Finding:
“Neither Rule 143 nor 144 mentions recovery of loss as a designated penalty. Therefore, the argument that recovery of loss is naturally a minor penalty doesn’t find legal favor.”
4. Court’s Decision-Making Process & Ratio
1. Decision vs. Decision-Making Process
“In reviewing administrative actions, the Writ Court evaluates the decision-making process, not the decision itself.”
2. Domestic Inquiry was Imperative
Because the initial Charge Memo (Ext.P12) threatened action under Section 147 leading specifically to Major Penalties, bypassing a domestic inquiry was completely illegal once the appellant disputed the facts and blamed specific coworkers.
Precedents Clarified:
Union of India v. Indraj [2025 KHC 7610]: Standard judicial restraint applies only when disciplinary proceedings were completed *validly* with due process.
GM Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah [2025 KHC OnLine 6778]: Judicial review is limited *after* a full domestic inquiry. Not applicable where the department skips the inquiry entirely.
3. The Final Directives:
- Writ Appeal Allowed.
- Exts. P15 and P18 orders are completely set aside.
- The department has the option to reopen/continue the inquiry, but they must start strictly from the stage of Ext.P12 (Charge Memo) and Ext.P13 (Explanation), ensuring a proper domestic inquiry is completed.
Leave a Reply