REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3964 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 26, 2010 Randhir Singh .....Appellant VERSUS The Haryana State Co-op. Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Panchkula and another ....Respondents 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. Pardeep Solath, Advocate, for the appellant. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos.3964 of 2009 (Randhir Singh Vs. The Haryana State Co-op. Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Panchkula and another) and 3965 of 2009 (Vishnu Bhagwan Vs. The Haryana State Co- op. Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Panchkula and another). Both the appellants were served charge sheet on the ground that in the year 1992, they had failed to perform their respective duties in regard to checking and maintenance work of REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3964 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: machinery of HAFED Cold Storage, Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra with the result that the potatoes stored by the farmers in the said Cold Storage started sprouting, causing loss to the tune of Rs.30,31,302-62P. Some additional allegations were made against appellant, Randhir Singh to the effect that he had failed to check the daily log book and had also failed to make an entry regarding the rising temperature and that he had failed to take action against refrigerator operator. It is also alleged that he failed to check the functioning of the machinery and failed to report the matter to higher authorities. The allegation against appellant, Vishnu Bhagwan, was that he failed to perform his duty as Electrician and also did not carry out the repair and maintenance of the refrigeration system. Both the appellants submitted reply to the charges framed against them. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was detailed to conduct the enquiry. On the basis of the enquiry, both the appellants were issued show cause notice for recovery of Rs.6,06,260-57P. The appellants submitted their reply to the said show cause notices, when the impugned order was passed on 22.11.2002 directing recovery. Both the appellants accordingly filed suit, challenging the charge sheet, enquiry report, show cause notice and the order directing recoveries. In the written statement filed, various preliminary objections were taken. On merits, it was pleaded that the suit was barred by time as the charge sheet dated 22.1.1995 was challenged in the year 2002. The charge sheet, show cause notice and the impugned order were otherwise held legal and valid as having been made after conducting enquiry in accordance with the Rules. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3964 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: The trial proceeded on the following issues:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration with the consequential relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether present suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 5. Whether present suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC? OPD 6. Relief.” The Trial Court dismissed the suit, against which both the appellants filed appeals, which have also been dismissed. They have have accordingly filed these two separate Regular Second Appeals. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has raised number of pleas and has made submissions on the grounds as were urged before the courts below. He would first submit that relevant witnesses were not examined and there is no relevant evidence led to prove the negligence on the part of the appellants. He would also urge that personal hearing was done by one person whereas the order was passed by another who subsequently participated as a Member of the Board, which would render the impugned order bad in law. A perusal of the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as lower Appellate Court would clearly show that the appellants were not able to substantiate their pleas. It is noticed by the courts that REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3964 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: five witnesses were examined on behalf of the Department. Due opportunity was found to have been given to the appellants to cross- examine the witnesses. It was rightly observed that the Courts could not go into the adequacy of the evidence. It could not be shown that one of the Members of the Board of Directors was present when the Board decided the appeal of the appellants. In a way, the counsel for the appellants made an attempt to seek re-appreciation of the evidence, which is not within the scope and purview of the Civil Court. In Bongaigaon Refinery & P.C.Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Girish Chandra Sarmah, 2007 (3) SCT 817, it is clearly held that the Court can not sit as appellate authority over the domestic enquiries held. Where the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is not sound or is perverse, then the Court may interfere. Nothing is pointed out by the counsel either from the record or otherwise to show that the enquiry held in this case was perverse in any manner. The counsel also could not point out in any manner that the findings are perverse and not support by any evidence on record. Accordingly, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Both the appeals are, therefore, dismissed in limine. April 26, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE