RSA No. 1252 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1252 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.5.2011. State of Haryana and another .......Appellants Vs. Hira Lal ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. G.I.Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the recovery of ` 1,72,040/- sought to be made from him. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was working as Sales Officer at Delhi Camp Office. The plaintiff had been issued lottery tickets on 8.11.1993 vide invoice No. 140438 dated 8.11.1993. The total number of tickets were 32 lacs. The tickets were delivered to the plaintiff on 9.11.1993. Plaintiff sold the tickets worth ` 31,50,000/-. 50,000 unsold lottery tickets bearing numbers 5550 to 5599 were deposited by the plaintiff in the godown at Delhi on 9.11.1993. The receipt in this regard was duly issued by the concerned official. After the draw of lots the account was closed and nothing was outstanding against the plaintiff. However, the statement of accounts was inspected by RSA No. 1252 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the accounts department and a notice was issued to the plaintiff for recovery of ` 718/-. The said amount was deposited by the plaintiff with the department. Thereafter, recovery qua the unsold tickets bearing No. 5550 to 5599 was sought to be made from the plaintiff although he had deposited the unsold tickets in the godown. Defendants No. 1 and 2, in their written statement, averred that as per the record of the godown at Delhi, 50,000 unsold tickets were not received from the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff was liable to pay the amount sought to be recovered from him. An inquiry was held by the senior sales officer of the department and the plaintiff failed to appear in the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry officer found the plaintiff guilty qua the shortage of 50,000 tickets. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the demand of recovery of Rs. 172040 issued by Director of Lotteries, Haryana are illegal, ultra-virus, null and void and against the principles of natural justice? OPP 2. Whether the Director of Lotteries is liable to be restrained from the recovery of this amount from the pay of the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?OPD 5. Whether the suit is non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties? OPD RSA No. 1252 of 2010 (O&M) -3- 6. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 7. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to file the present suit? OPD 8. Relief.” Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 31.7.2009 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Learned state counsel has submitted that an inquiry was held against the plaintiff qua 50,000 missing tickets and plaintiff was found guilty in the said inquiry. The suit filed by the plaintiff was, thus, liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that as per Ex.P-5, plaintiff had deposited the unsold tickets in the godown and hence, could not be held liable for payment qua the said tickets. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The scope of judicial review regarding interference with punishment order is very limited. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is only to see the method/manner of awarding punishment. The Court is only concerned with the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority. If the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority is according to rules and natural justice, then no interference with the punishment order is called for. The Civil Court cannot go into the merits of the case. In case, the RSA No. 1252 of 2010 (O&M) -4- finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on some evidence, then the Court cannot reappreicate the evidence or weigh the same like the Appellate Authority. So long as there is some evidence in support of the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. Some defect in the inquiry has to be pointed out before the Civil Court can interfere with the punishment order. In the present case, inquiry was held against the plaintiff and the inquiry officer gave the opinion that the tickets numbering 5550000 to 5599999 declared as unsold against the godown may be treated as sold by the concerned sales officer and he may be asked to deposit the sale amount of these tickets against the sale proceeds of the draw. Ex.P-5 is a document prepared by the office of the defendants. A perusal of the said document reveals that 50,000 unsold tickets bearing No. 5550 to 5599 had been deposited on 10.11.1993. The said material document was not taken in consideration by the inquiry officer. The finding of the inquiry officer was, thus, contrary to available record on the file. In these circumstances, both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have held that the recovery proceedings initiated against the plaintiff were illegal as the unsold tickets had been duly deposited by the plaintiff in the godown as per Ex. P-5. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 31, 2011 Gurpreet