R.S.A. No.1727 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.1727 of 2004 Date of Decision:17.12.2008 Kulwant Singh .....Appellant Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited, Sangrur .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate for the respondent. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment/ decree dated 24.11.2003 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment/ decree dated 3.2.2003 vide which the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla decreed the suit with costs for recovery of Rs.57,449/- from defendant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date it became due to the plaintiff till its realisation. The brief facts which form the backdrop of the suit are that the defendant was serving with the plaintiff- Corporation as Storeman and was posted at Fertiliser Sale Centre ((Khad Vikri Kendar) District Sangrur. He was transferred from Ahmedgarh to Malerkotla at Fertiliser Sale Centre, Malerkotla vide order dated 21.12.1990. Nirpal Singh, Storeman No.10807 was relieved from Malerkotla vide office order dated 23.1.1991 with a R.S.A. No.1727 of 2004 -2- direction to take the charge from defendant at Fertilizer Sale Centre, Ahmedgarh. Vide letters dated 29.1.1991 and 8.2.1991, the defendant was directed to hand over the charge of the Fertiliser Sale Centre, Ahmedgarh to aforesaid Nirpal Singh, but he did not turn up to give the charge. The double lock was placed on the Sale Centre, Ahmedgarh regarding which the defendant was informed vide letter dated 7.1.1991. Despite that, he did not come present. Vide order dated 21.3.1991, a Committee was constituted to break open the lock of the Sale Centre, Ahmedgarh and to give charge of the same to Nirpal Singh and, accordingly, it was done on 30.3.1991. On verification of the record and stock, the stock was found short. It was detected that the defendant had committed shortage of stock besides sale proceeds of fertiliser to the tune of Rs.57,449/-. Nirpal Singh- Storeman used to sit outside the Sale Centre at Ahmedgarh during office hours in the wait of the defendant in order to take the charge but upto 14.12.1991 he did not appear. The defendant had also tampered with the record and for this misconduct, he was liable for disciplinary action under Clause 23(1)(a)(b) and (c) of the Standing Orders of the Corporation. Sukhjit Singh was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. Despite receipt of notice from the Inquiry Officer, the defendant did not put in his appearance before the Inquiry Officer, nor sent any reply though the letter sent by Karam Singh, Inquiry Officer was duly received by him on 16.4.1991. After service of the charge- sheet, the defendant was shown relevant record and he was found guilty as per inquiry report dated 24.6.1993 and it was found that he had embezzled a sum of Rs.57,449/-. He was dismissed from service by the Corporation. Vide letter dated 20.12.1993, he was called upon to deposit the aforesaid amount in the office of the Corporation, but he flatly refused to do so. He R.S.A. No.1727 of 2004 -3- has wrongly retained this amount belonging to the Corporation. Therefore, he is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date, the same was found due. On these allegations, the suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.80,428/- comprising principal amount of Rs.57,449/- and interest Rs.22,979 at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 30.3.1991. In consequence of his failure to file the written statement, the defence of the defendant was struck off by the learned trial Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, besides examining the evidence on record with due care and circumspection, the learned trial Court decreed the suit as noted at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the defendant went up in appeal which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Being undaunted and dissatisfied, he has filed this second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection. Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate representing the appellant urged with great eloquence that it is own case of the plaintiff- respondent that the amount became due from the defendant with effect from 30.3.1991. It implies that the period of limitation started running from this date. This being a suit for recovery could be filed within three years from the said date. The instant suit having been filed on 16.12.1994 is obviously barred by limitation. To controvert these submissions, Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff- respondent argued that the period of limitation had begun to run from the date of inquiry report, i.e., 24.6.1993 R.S.A. No.1727 of 2004 -4- and on calculating the period of three years right from this date onwards it comes out that the suit is well within limitation. I have well considered the rival contentions. Only on the conclusion of inquiry, it could be said that the defendant- appellant had committed misappropriation of stock and consequently, liable to be fastened with the liability qua the amount in question. To be in fairness to Mr. Singla, of course, the plaintiff- respondent has alleged that the amount fell due from 30.3.1991, but this date cannot be treated as “terminus-a-quo” as on that date, it was not possible for the Corporation to say as to how much amount is due from the defendant- appellant on account of misappropriation of the stock. So, unhesitatingly, it is held that 24.6.1993 would be the starting point of limitation in this case. The suit having been filed on 16.12.1994 is thus ostensibly within limitation. Sequelly, the contention raised by Mr. Singla is jettisoned. As transpires from the trial Court's judgment, the defendant- appellant did not file any written statement controverting the allegations contained in the plaint. As its corollary, there can be no escape from the finding that he has admitted the claim of the Corporation- plaintiff. Sequelly, no fault can be found with the findings returned by both the Courts below that the plaintiff- Corporation is entitled to recover Rs.57,449/-. The learned trial Court has awarded interest at the rate of Rs.12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.57,449/- from 30.3.1991, which is unsustainable for the reason that on 30.3.1991 the amount was yet to be ascertained and that being so, it would be going too far to say that the aforesaid amount had become due on 30.3.1991. It would be in the right perspective to hold that the plaintiff- Corporation is entitled to claim interest R.S.A. No.1727 of 2004 -5- over the said amount from 24.6.1993 the date of enquiry report. Consequently, the impugned decrees are modified to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.57,449/- from the defendant- appellant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 24.6.1993 till the date of filing of the suit, i.e., 16.12.1994 and shall be entitled to claim pendente lite interest over the said amount at the rate of 9% per annum from 16.12.1994 till the date of passing of the decree, i.e., 3.2.2003 and shall be further entitled to claim future interest at the rate of Rs.6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation of the decretal amount. With this modification in the impugned judgments/ decrees, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Of course, having regard to the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. December 17, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? No.