REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.544 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 05, 2010 Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh and another .....Appellants VERSUS Narinder Kumar Dhawan ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Charanjit Bakshi, Advocate, for the appellants. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation (for short, “the Corporation”) has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.18,20,692.24P on account of shortage of wheat stocks etc. and for another sum of Rs.6,26,142.93P as interest accruing thereon, attributed to the conduct of respondent, Narinder Kumar Dhawan. The respondent was posted as Sub Inspector at Fazilka Centre during 1986. He was responsible for the wheat stock at Fazilka. Vide order dated 14.9.1988, the respondent was transferred to Circle Office Ferozepur and in place Narinder Singh REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.544 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: Nirdosa, Sub Inspector was posted. The respondent was accordingly asked to hand over the charge of wheat stock upto 22.10.1988 and stock articles upto 2.12.1998 to said Narinder Singh Nirdosa. The shortage of the wheat stock was accordingly noticed, which was due to lack of supervision and accordingly respondent, Narinder Kumar Dhawan was held responsible for the said loss. The appellant- Corporation accordingly filed a suit for recovery of the amounts as aforementioned. The respondent, in response, raised objection on the ground that the suit was time barred and was bad for non-joinder of the necessary party. The suit was partly decreed and the appellant- Corporation was held entitled to recover a loss of Rs.8,76,617.39P The respondent filed appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court, which was allowed. The appellants accordingly have filed this Regular Second Appeal. In Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp.Ltd. Vs. Sikander Singh, JT 2006 (3) SC 457, it is observed that negligence in the performance of duty under a contract of employment may give rise to the disciplinary proceedings but in a case of this nature, the same would not give rise to a cause of action for recovery of money for goods lost as in the disciplinary proceedings itself recovery of money from the delinquent can be directed by way of punishment. It is seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed so in the case filed by the PUNSUP. In Sikander Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly viewed that the suit filed being not maintainable was rightly dismissed. In view of the ratio of law as laid down, the present appeal is required to be dismissed. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.544 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: Mr.C.S.Bakshi, counsel for the Corporation, however, is justified in submitting that the right of the Corporation to recover the loss can not be allowed to be defeated on the technicalities as urged. Undoubtedly, the respondent was found responsible for causing loss to the appellant-Corporation and the right of the appellant- Corporation to recover this loss, thus, can not be allowed to be put to prejudice in any manner. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sikander Singh's case (supra) that Corporation can recover the loss by way of punishment and that is reason for which the suit was held to be not maintainable. It can, therefore, be observed that Corporation would be at liberty to recover this loss either by initiating the disciplinary proceedings or by directing recovery by way of any other appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed in the above terms. May 05, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE