Facts
The petitioner, a retired Senior Assistant of the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation, had served as in-charge Warehouse Manager at Holenarasipura from January 2017 to June 2021.
Source reference: p.2–3While Ball Copra stored there during 2020–21 was released, a shortfall of 6.027 metric tonnes—calculated as 2.77% and attributed to natural driage—was recorded.
Source reference: p.2–3The Corporation withheld ₹6,81,051 from the petitioner’s retirement benefits as the quantified storage loss.
Source reference: p.2–3The petitioner challenged the withholding and sought release of the balance retirement benefits with interest.
Source reference: p.1Issues
1. Whether the Corporation could recover the quantified Ball Copra storage loss from the petitioner’s retirement benefits when it had sought a write-off for the loss as natural driage.
Source reference: p.4–62. Whether the Corporation could withhold retirement benefits for the alleged loss without an inquiry or other prior process establishing the petitioner’s responsibility.
Source reference: p.6Law Applied
accepted storage or driage loss in agricultural commodities, where attributable to climatic conditions rather than an employee’s deliberate conduct, cannot without more be attributed to that employee
Source reference: p.5–6a party which has represented a loss as permissible and sought its write-off may be estopped from seeking recovery of that loss from the employee
Source reference: p.5–6retirement benefits, some of which are in the nature of property, cannot be withheld absent authority under the applicable rules or a duly constituted inquiry establishing the basis for recovery
Source reference: p.5–6Reasoning
The Corporation’s communication to NAFED described the 2.77% shortfall as natural driage and sought a write-off, consistent with its previous practice of allowing write-offs up to 4%.
Source reference: p.4–5The Court treated that position as inconsistent with recovering the same loss from the petitioner.
Source reference: p.4–5It also noted that the Corporation had not held an inquiry or established the petitioner’s responsibility before his retirement, making the withholding of benefits impermissible.
Source reference: p.6Holding
The Court set aside the withholding order at Annexure E and directed the Corporation to release the withheld retirement benefits.
After the Corporation undertook to release the benefits within three months, the Court waived the petitioner’s claim for interest.
Source reference: p.7The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Source reference: p.7Original Court PDF
SRI PUTTASWAMYvsTHE KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
