RESERVED HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL FIRST APEAL NO. 79 OF 2004 National Seeds Corporation Limited & Others ….Defendants-Appellants Vs. Ratan Lal Chauhan ….Plaintiff-Respondent 23.6.2008 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri V.K. Bisht, Sr. Advocate assisted by Smt. Seema Sirohi, counsel for the appellant and Shri Manoj Tiwari, counsel for the respondent. 2. By the present first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Civil Suit No. 99 of 1999. 3. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the plaintiff being suit no. 99 of 1999 praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from realizing the amount of Rs. 1,82,882/- from the plaintiff. According to the plaint averments, the defendant no. 1 National Seeds Corporation is doing the business of selling of seeds and for that purpose officers and employees have been employed. The plaintiff has also been employed and has been posted at Regional Office, Kolkata as Assistant Seeds Officer. 2 During the season of 1996-1997, when the plaintiff was posted at Hempur, District Udham Singh Nagar as Assistant Seeds Officer, there were two other Assistant Seeds Officer, namely, Shri Layak Ram and Shri R.K. Sharma and the plaintiff was the incharge of the plant. The plaintiff alongwith two other officers were doing the work of filling of seed, which are known as Standard size and under size crop seed in different packs. Paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint reads as under:- “¼4-½ ;g fd fdlkuksa ls mRikfnr Qly dks fo/kk;u djus o chtksa ds fy;s IykUV esa fo/kk;u djus gsrq oknh rFkk mijksDr of.kZr vU; nks lgk;d cht vf/kdkjh dk;Z djrs Fks vkSj LVsUMMZ cht rFkk vUMjlkbZt Qly cht dks cht la;a= ds }kjk viuh &viuh ikyh esa fo/kk;u vyx vyx djkrs Fks rFkk fcdzh gsrq LVsUMMZ cht dks vyx vyx FkSyksa esa iSd djkrs Fks A ¼5½ ;g fd mijksDr dk;kZas ds vUrxZr oknh o mDr of.kZr nks vU; vf/kdkjhx.k us vyx vyx fuEurkfydk esa iznf’kZr mit dks tks o"kZ 1996&97 dh mRikfnr Fkh o"kZ 1997&1998 esas gSf.My fd;k vkSj mudk fo/kk;u djds LVsUMMZ cht o vUMjlkbZt dks vyx vyx fd;k A” 4. It has been stated that according to the procedure prescribed by the Corporation, every pack of seeds will be of 40 kilograms. But the two officers have filled up 42 kilograms seeds instead of 40 kilograms and left out the under size seeds so shown to have been filled. In paragraph nos. 9 and 10, it has been stated as under:- “9- ;g fd vU; nks lgk;d chp vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk iSd djk;s x;s chtksa esa dqN [kjkch vk tkus ij iqu% VªhVesaV dh vko’;drk eglwl gq;h rc yxHkx 4134 dqUVy cht rksyk x;k vkSj mldks rksyus ij mlds 112 dqUry cht vf/kd ik;k x;k ftlls Hkh izekf.kr gS fd FkSyksa esa fu/kkZfjr 40 fdyks izfr FkSyk ls vf/kd eky iSd fd;k x;k Fkk tks fd 2-71 % dh nj ls vf/kd Hkjk x;k FkkA 10- ;g fd blds vfrfjDr tks fc[kjk gqvk eky ogkWa ij ekStwn Fkk mldks Hkh rksyk x;k vkSj ;g 185-49 dqUVy fudyk vkSj bl 3 rjg 112 dqUVy vf/kd cht dks feyk dj dqy 297-49 dqUVy eky chtksa dh fn[kk;h xbZ ek=k ls vf/kd feyk A” 5. In paragraph 15 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that the defendants have received a sum of Rs. 1,48,602/- by selling the seeds to the extent of 297.49 Quintal out of which the seepage seeds was to the extent of Rs. 185.49 Quintal worth Rs. 1,23,350.36. Paragraph 15 of the plaint is quoted below:- “15- ;g fd ;gkWa ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd FkSyksa ls izkIr vf/kd cht 112 dqUVy rFkk fc[kjs gq, eky 185-49 dqUVy dqy 297-49 dq0 eky dks dkjiksjs’ku us uhyke djds 1]23]350-36 :Ik;s izkIr Hkh dj fy;k gS tks fd fookfnr lhtu okys eky dk gh Hkkx gS vr% fdlh Hkh n’kk esa ;g jkf’k 1]23]350-36 iwjh jkf’k 1]48]602 esa ls de gksuh gh pkfg;s Fkh vkSj bl izdkj Hkh dkjiksjs’ku dks {kfr dsoy 25]251&64 dh gh jg tkrh gS vkSj ;g {kfr Hkh ugha jgrh ;fn c<+k gqvk eky ctk; uhyke ds cktkj Hkko esa cspk tkrk A” 6. It has been stated that as a result of the aforesaid, under size seeds were found nearly 485 quintal less in quantity which occurred due to fault of two other Assistant Seeds Officers because of the fact that they have filled up the pack of more than 40 kilograms. The defendant corporation has started deducting a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month from the salary of the plaintiff, hence, the suit has been filed for restraining the defendant from realizing the amount. 7. The defendant no. 1 National Seeds Corporation Limited has filed the written statement and has denied the plaint averments. It has been stated that the plaintiff was the incharge of the plant and he was responsible for taking proper work by his subordinates, packing and sending of seeds in order and keep watch on the action of his subordinates. In paragraph 29 of the written statement, it has been stated as under :- 4 “29- ;g fd xsgWwa dk vUr%xzg.k ekg vizSy ebZ esa izR;sd o"kZ gksrk gS rks ml le; xsgWwa esa ueh dh ek=k 8 ls 9 izfr’kr rd gksrh gS rFkk fMLiSp ds le; flrEcj] vDVwcj ekg esa o"kkZ ds dkj.k okrkoj.k esa vknzZrk dh ek=k dkQh c<+ pqdh gksrh gS A iSfdax fd;s gq, gj iSd esa 40 fdyks Hkjs x;s cht ds rkSys tkus ij otu esa ueh] cksjk] VSx] lhy] ysfcy] /kkxk vkfn ds otu lfgr 40 fdyks ls vf/kd gks tkrs gSa A fMLiSp ds le; xsgWa esa ueh dh ek=k Hkh 11 ls 12 izfr’kr rd gks pqdh gksrh gS] ftl dkj.k iSd fd;s x;s 40 fdyks cht dk fMLiSp ds le; /keZ dkaVs ij rkSys tkus ij otu LokHkkfod :Ik ls c<+ tkrk gSA” 8. In paragraph no. 30 of the written statement, it has been stated as under:- “30- ;g fd izkslsflax IykUV esa vUMj lkbZt eky esa deh izkslsflax IykUV ds bapktZ oknh }kjk vius drZO;ksa dk lgh <ax ls fuoZgu u fd;s tkus dh otg rFkk Jh ,y-,y-ik.Ms] lgk;d eSustj }kjk mfpr ns[k&js[k u fd;s tkus dh otg ls foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh }kjk us’kuy lhM~l dkjiksjs’ku bEiykbZt dUMDV fMlhIysu ,.M vihy :Yl 1992 ds izkfo/kku ¼A½ ¼AA½ vkSj ¼AAA½ vUrxZr :y 6 ¼ƒ½ dk;Zokgh djrs gq, oknh ls eqofyx 1]18]882@& ¼,d yk[k vBkjg gtkj vkB lkS c;klh½ rFkk Jh ,l0 ,y0 ik.Ms] lgk;d eSustj ls eq0 29]720@& ¼mUrhl gtkj lkr lkS chl½ dh olwyh dh dk;Zokgh dh xbZ gS ftlds fo:) vihy izfroknh la[;k 1 ds ;gkWa fopkjk/khu gS vkSj lquokbZ py jgh gS A” 9. The defendant nos. 2 and 3 have filed the separate written statements reiterating the averments as made by the defendant no. 1 in his written statement. 10. The plaintiff has filed a replication also and denied the averments of the defendants made in the written statements. 5 11. On the pleadings of the parties, trial court has framed the following issues:- “1- D;k okn dk ewY;kadu de fd;k x;k gS rFkk vnk dh xbZ dksVZ Qhl vi;kZIr gS\ 2- D;k oknh ds osru ls 1]18]882@& :Ik;s dh dVkSrh dk vkns’k xSj dkuwuh gS\ 3- D;k bl U;k;ky; dks okn dks lquus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS\ 4- D;k oknh us cht fo/kk;u la;a= ds bUpktZ ds in ij jgrs gq, vius drZC; dk fuoZgu ugha fd;k \ 5- oknh fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 12. The plaintiff has produced 9 documents per list 61 ga. Towards the oral evidence, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1. 13. The defendants have produced 31 documents per list 65 ga. Towards the oral evidence, the defendants have examined D.W.1 Surendra Singh and D.W. 2 Vijay Veer Singh. 14. While deciding issue nos. 2 as to whether the order of deducting Rs. 1,18,882/- from the salary of the plaintiff can be said to be justified and further issue no. 4 as to whether the plaintiff has not performed his duty as incharge of the plant. The trial court has recorded the finding that the Corporation has realized the amount of Rs. 1,23,350.36 by auctioning 297.49 quintals wheat and, therefore, there is no reason for recovery of Rs. 1,18,882/- from the plaintiff. Further, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving his case and, therefore, the order passed by the defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,18,882/- from the plaintiff is illegal. The trial court has recorded the finding to the following effect:- 6 “vr% oknh vius izdj.k dks fl) djus esa iw.kZr% lQy jgk gS vkSj mlus tks ;g dgk fd 4134 dqUry esa ls 112 dqUry vf/kd feyk vkSj dqN uhps iM+k gqvk xsgWwa Hkh Fkk A mldk ewY; :0 1]23]000@& ds yxHkx Fkk A bl izdkj ls Hkjh ml 1]48]000@& esa ls dsoy 20 gtkj dk gh xsgWaw de ik;k x;k mlds fy, Hkh vU; xsgWwa u rks rksyk x;k vkSj u gh ml le; lgh rjhds ls cht dk lR;kiu fd;k x;k dsoy ,d euekus <ax ds vk/kkj ij oknh ls :0 1]48]000@& dh olwyh dk vkns’k nsuk mfpr ugha Fkk A oknh us :0 1]18]882@& dks olwy u djus ds fy;s ;g okn lafLFkr fd;k gS tks fd 247 dqUry cht dk ewY; gS tks fd lhist ls vkSj vf/kd ik;s tkus ds cht ls ftldk ewY; iwjk gks tkrk gS A vr% esjh jk; esa oknh viuk izdj.k fl) djus esa lQy jgk gS A mlls tks 1]18]882@& dh olwyh dh tk jgh gS og vuqfpr gSA” 15. While deciding issue no. 3 with regard to jurisdiction, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the court has the jurisdiction to try the present suit. 16. On the basis of the aforesaid, the trial court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 17. The trial court has also taken into consideration the statement of D.W.1 Surendra Singh, who has been cross- examined by the plaintiff. The trial court has recorded the finding as under:- “ blls oknh dh vksj ls ftjg dh x;h gS A mlus dgk fd orZeku esa eSustj ds in ij gS A jru yky dks nl lky ls tkurk gS A ftl le; oknh us ;g okn nk;j fd;k Fkk ml le; frdM+h ftyk Vhdex<+ e/; izns’k esa rSukr Fkk vkSj izfroknh ls lEcfU/kr tks dkxtkr vkSj rF; gSa muls Hkh Hkyh izdkj ls okfdQ gWwa A eSusa oknh ds lkFk dHkh dk;Z ugha fd;k A eSa bl le; fuxe 7 esa vDVwcj 1985 ls vk;k A ;g Hkh bl O;fDr us vius lk{; esa dgk fd ,d yk[k chl gtkj dh tks ftEesnkjh yk;d jke ij fu;r dh x;h Fkh ml laca/k esa eq>s dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gS A cht fo/kk;u dsUnz ij M~;wVh dk vkns’k izfdz;k izHkkjh dks lacaf/kr dk;kZy; ds ,fj;k eSustj nsrk gSA bUgksaus viuh ftjg esa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd tkWap desVh }kjk oknh dh bUDokbjh fjiksVZ ,oa muds fo:) lk{; esjs ofj"B dk;kZy; esa miyC/k gSa A pwWafd oknh us tkWap desVh ds fuekZ.k ds fo:) vihy dh gS] tks fopkjk/khu gS] blfy, oknh dks lu~ 1999 ls vc rd dksbZ tkWap fjiksVZ dh dkih miyC/k ugha djk;h gksxh A tkWap lfefr }kjk oknh dks iw.kZ volj oknh dks viuk Ik{k j[kus dk fn;k x;k A U;k;ky; us dksbZ fjiksVZ foHkkx ls ekWaxh Fkh] esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gS A oknh dh vksj ls fyf[kr f’kdk;r ij yscj dkWUVªSDVj dk Hkqxrku blfy, ugha jksdk x;k D;ksafd foHkkx us ,slk dksbZ dkj.k ugha le>k fd bldk Hkqxrku jksdk tk; A o"kZ 1997 esa bl {ks= esa og fu;qDr ugha Fkk blfy, o"kksZa ds ckjs esa eq>s tkudkjh ugha gS A eq[;ky; }kjk QSDl 1947 esa fnukad 15&10&97 ds laca/k esa eq>s dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gS] ftls vfHkys[k ns[kdj gh crk;k tk ldrk gS A 76 Vªdksa esa T;knk cht Hkjk x;k Fk] bl laca/k esa eq>s tkudkjh ugha gSA ;g {ks=h; dk;kZy; gh crk ldrk gS A 297-49 dqUry esa ls ,d yk[k rsjg gtkj lkr lkS uCcs :Ik;s ipkl iSls esa cspk x;k Fkk] ;g iSlk fdl ,dkmUV esa tek fd;k x;k blds fo"k; esa mRrj fn;k gS fd mldk iSlk lhist ,dkmUV esa j[kk tkrk gS] ftldks dk;Z iwjk gks tkus ij desVh }kjk cspdj foHkkxh; ,dkmUV esa tek fd;k tkrk gS mDr iSlk Hkh blh ,dkmUV esa tek fd;k x;k AÞ 18. I have perused the record. It is admitted fact that the Corporation realized a sum of Rs. 1,23,350.36 by auctioning the wheat to the extent of Rs. 297.49 quintals. Further, the defendants have not taken into consideration the wheat which was lying in the plant by way of seepage. 8 19. Further, perusal of the record shows that the investigation report has not been submitted in the court inspite of the order of the court at the initial stage and the copy of the same has been submitted after the arguments have been concluded which has not been accepted by the plaintiff. The said investigation report has also not been proved, therefore, the same cannot be taken into evidence. Further, D.W.1 Surendra Singh has stated that the defendants have received a sum of Rs. 1,48,602/- from selling of seeds out of which a sum of Rs. 1,23,350.36/- has been received from the seepage seeds in question and the amount of Rs. 1,23,350.36 has not been adjusted in the amount claimed from the plaintiff. The aforesaid statement of D.W.1 has not been refuted by the defendants by leading any evidence. 20. The trial court has also recorded the finding to the following effect:- “16 ls 17 gtkj dqUry tks cht Fkk mldks ugha rkSyk x;k tcfd iwjk cht rhl gtkj dqUry Fkk A mldks Hkh ugha rkSyk x;k D;ksafd mlesa ls dqN igys fcd pqdk Fkk A ysfdu bl 40134 dqUry cht ds vuqikr ls Hkh leLr rhl gtkj dqUry cht ls vf/kd cht dh ek=k ugha c<+k;k x;k gS vkSj lcls izeq[k rF; ;g gS fd izfroknh dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; gh izLrqr ugha djk;k x;k gS vkSj cgl gksus ds ckn tkWap vk[;k dh tks Nk;k izfr nkf[ky dh x;h gS og lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha gSA izfroknh dh vksj ls Hkh dksbZ lk{; ugha gS A lkekU; fof/k ds vuqlkj tc 40134 dqUry cht esa 112 dqUry cht vf/kd ik;k x;k gS rks lkekU; uSlfxZd fl)kUr ds vk/kkj ij rhl gtkj dqUry esa fdruk cht vf/kd gksxk] ;g Hkh fuxe ds mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk lkfcr fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk A nwljs lkjk cht ,d lkFk j[kk x;k gS tks fHkUu&fHkUu yk;d jke vkSj vkj-ds- 'kekZ dh ikyh esa Hkh cht rksyk x;k rks ;g dSls dgk tk ldrk gS ;g tks deh ik;h x;h og oknh ds fdz;kdykiksa ds 9 dkj.k Fkh A lcls vf/kd cy izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls fn;k x;k gS fd oknh Lo;a izHkkjh vf/kdkjh Fkk vkSj yk;d jke o vkj0ds0 'kekZ buds fu;U=.k esa Fks A vr% buds dk;Z esa fu;U=.k j[kuk pkfg, Fkk A ysfdu t feyku dk dk;Z gks jgk Fkk rks cht Hkjk yx jgk Fkk dksbZ Hkh O;fDr fdl izdkj fu;U=.k esa j[k ldrk gS A lcls lgh rjhdk Fkk tSlk fd oknh ds fo:) f’kdk;r ik;h x;h rks cht dks rkSy djds Hkjk tkuk pkfg, Fkk fdruk cht cksjs esa Hkjk x;k gS A izfroknh dh vksj ls tks ;g dgk x;k gS fd ueh dh otg ls c<+k Fkk bldk Hkh dksbZ dkj.k ugha fn;k x;k gS A dsoy vuqeku ds vk/kkj ij dgk x;k fd ueh ds dkj.k c<+ x;k Fkk ysfdu tgkWa yk[kksa :Ik;ksa dk vkjksi fdlh O;fDr ij yxk;k tk jgk gS] mldk Ik{k Hkh fuxe dks lquuk pkfg, Fkk vkSj lkekU; <ax ls lkekU; izfdz;k ds cksjksa dks rqyokuk pkfg, Fkk tks cht uhps ik;k x;k ftls fd lhist [kkrs esa tek djuk crk;k x;k gS A ;g Hkh mlh xsgwA dk Hkkx Fkk tks vf/kd [kjhnk x;k Fkk A vr% bl cht dks dsoy oknh ds [kkrs esa de fn[kk;k tkuk Hkh U;k;ksfpr ugha gS A nqckjk cgl ds nkSjku izfroknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us ml vxzkg~; fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ml fjiksVZ ds rF;ksa dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V fd;k fd oknh dk c;ku gqvk gS ysfdu lk{; ds ckn cgl gks tkus ds ckn og fjiksVZ dh Nk;k izfr lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha gS A Nk;k izfr nkf[ky dh x;h gS ftlds fo"k; esa ;fn og igys nkf[ky dh tkrh rks oknh Hkh ftjg dj ldrk Fkk vkSj izfroknh Hkh A mlds lEcU/k esa oknh dk tc ijh{k.k gqvk Fkk rks ftjg dj ldrk Fkk ftlls fLFkfr Li"V gksrh vkSj nksuks Ik{kksa dks viuk&viuk Ik{k izLrqr djus ds fy, vkSj viuk lk{; izLrqr djus ds fy, vf/kd le; feyrk A” 21. I do not finding any infirmity with the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial court and, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court requires no interference. 10 22. In view of the aforesaid, first appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court is confirmed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 23.6.2008 Avneet