R.S.A No. 4462 of 2009 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 4462 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : April 20, 2010 Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and another, ...... Appellant (s) v. Baldev Kaur and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. C.S.Bakhshi, Advocate for the appellants. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the recovery suit filed by the appellants against their employees (respondents) on the ground that they had caused shortage in the wheat. Both the Courts were influenced by two facts. Firstly, that the suit was not within limitation, and secondly that no disciplinary action or fact finding or any other inquiry was lodged by the appellants after detecting the alleged shortage. The following questions have been proposed :- R.S.A No. 4462 of 2009 (O&M) ::2:: “ a) Whether the findings of both the Courts below viz issue No.5 that the suit was filed by a competent person are totally erroneous and perverse to law ? b) Whether shortage of wheat was caused due to the negligence of the respondents and whether the Courts below have failed to appreciate cogent evidence adduced by the appellant plaintiff in this regard ? c) Whether the findings of the Courts below viz issue No.1 i.e whether the suit was filed in limitation are erroneous ? d) Whether the Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the shortages in question were caused during the tenure of the respondents and none else could be held responsible for the same ? e) Whether a civil suit and departmental enquiry are two independent remedies with the appellant-Corporation and it is the sole discretion of the appellant to pursue any or both these remedies since both are duly provided for in law ? f) Whether the findings of the Courts below viz issue No.3 i.e misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties are erroneous?” It would be seen that question No.(c) relates to limitation. In case, this question is answered against the appellants, the remaining questions would not really arise. On this question, counsel for the appellants has argued that the wheat stock was finally disposed of on R.S.A No. 4462 of 2009 (O&M) ::3:: 30.4.1988 and the suit filed on 30.4.1991 was, therefore, within limitation. The Courts below, on the other hand, found that in the year 1985-86 there were atleast three inspections wherein the factum of shortage had been specifically pointed out. The Courts have also found that as per the statement of the witness of the appellants itself the wheat stock was finally disposed of 16.4.1988. On a conspectus of these dates, the Courts below have held the suit to be barred by limitation. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that any fault can be found with these findings of the Courts below. Consequently, question No.(c) has to be decided against the appellants. Once this question is answered against the appellants, the discussion on the remaining questions becomes academic. In the circumstances, holding the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 20, 2010. JUDGE `kk'