Civil Rev. 4725 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Civil Rev. 4725 of 2008 Date of decision: 15.7.2009 Waryam Singh Petitioner vs Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (PUNSUN) Respondent Present Mr. SS Siao, Advocate Mr. GS Sandhawalia, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner is a retired Public Distributor Clerk, Fatehgarh Sahib of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (PUNSUP). A suit for recovery seems to have been filed by the plaintiff-respondent PUNSUP alleging shortage of wheat bags, Bardana etc. for the year 1995-96 for Rs.6 lacs approximately. The petitioner-defendant had moved an application before the trial court when the case was fixed for defendant's evidence praying that the suit of the plaintiff-respondents should be dismissed as the civil court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit as in Punjab State civil Supplies Corp. v. Sikander Singh AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1438, it has been held that if loss/damage was caused due to negligence of the employee, then departmental committee can take an action against such person under the relevant service law and the civil suit for recovery would not be maintainable. The said application was opposed taking up a plea that the plaintiff has got a cause of action Civil Rev. 4725 of 2008 2 for filing a suit for recovery of the money for the loss caused by the defendant. The trial court vide the impugned order dated 9.8.2008 has ordered that the application for dismissal of the suit shall be decided along with the main suit, while adjourning the case for the evidence of the defendant giving him the last opportunity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is no cause of action to file a suit for recovery in view of the law laid down in Sikander Singh's case (supra) and the application should have been allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent and carefully gone through the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in context to the other provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. The civil court is required to give a finding on all the issues framed. The plea of the petitioner that there is no cause of action for filing a suit for recovery on account of the pendency of the departmental proceedings is to be tested in context to the other circumstances. Even a perusal of the judgment, cited by the counsel for the petitioner, indicates that in the said case the Supreme Court had observed that a civil suit for recovery might have been maintainable only if the employee was found to have misappropriated the goods. In the said case admittedly the employee had not misappropriated the goods and he was said to be negligent in performing his duties. In this context paragraphs 18.19.20 and 27 of the judgment can be referred to. It appears that the trial court will be required to determine whether the negligence has been attributed to the petitioner or misappropriation has been established for seeking recovery depending upon the circumstances of the case. It will always be open to the trial court to dismiss the suit by allowing the Civil Rev. 4725 of 2008 3 application of the petitioner-defendant. There does not appear to be any illegality in the impugned order dated 9.8.2008 by ordering that the application for dismissal of the suit shall be decided along with the main suit. Without prejudice to the rights of the defendant- petitioner, the revision petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to establish his claim before the trial court in context to the evidence and law, relied upon by him before this court. July 15 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE