REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 23, 2010 Kirpal Singh .....Appellant VERSUS Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh and others ....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. Raj Karan Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. C. S. Bakshi, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation (for short, “the Corporation”) has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.12,01,449.45P on account of shortage of wheat and for another sum of Rs.6,37,545.30P as interest accruing thereon, attributed to the conduct of appellant, Kirpal Singh. The appellant was posted as Sub Inspector at Jaitu Centre during 1991. He was responsible for the wheat stock at Jaitu under joint lock with Kamaljit Singh and after his suspension with Darshan Singh. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2010 2 On 5.5.1991, a Committee was constituted to hand over the charge of the wheat for the year 1991-92. The shortage of the wheat stock was accordingly noticed, which was due to lack of supervision and accordingly appellant, Kirpal Singh, was held responsible for the said loss. The Corporation accordingly filed a suit for recovery of the amounts as aforementioned. The appellant, in response, raised objection on the ground that the suit was time barred and was bad for non-joinder of the necessary party. He also pleaded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and the same was not maintainable. The suit was partly decreed and the respondent- Corporation was held entitled to recover a loss of Rs.4,63,023/-. The appellant as well as the Corporation filed appeals against the judgment of the Trial Court, which were dismissed by a common order on 16.9.2009. The appellant accordingly has filed this Regular Second Appeal. Reliance was placed on the ratio of law laid down in Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp.Ltd. Vs. Sikander Singh, JT 2006 (3) SC 457 to say that the suit by the Corporation was not maintainable in view of the law laid down in this case. The following substantial question of law, thus, was formulated in this case, while issuing notice of motion:- “Whether PUNSUP was legally entitled to file a civil suit for recovery of money for a loss caused by an employee, who was also proceeded ex parte by way of a departmental proceeding where recovery was directed to be made from his pay and allowances?” REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2010 3 Mr.C.S.Bakshi, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the Corporation in response to the notice. He would not seriously dispute the proposition of law that would emerge from Sikander Singh's case (supra). It is observed in this case 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, which is respondent in this case as well. 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 allowed. Mr.C.S.Bakshi, learned 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 appellant was found responsible for causing loss to the respondent-Corporation and the right of the respondent-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 REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2010 4 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 allowed in the above terms. April 23, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE