In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh R.S.A. No. 769 of 1987 Date of Decision: November 27, 2009 D.C. Madan …Appellant Versus Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr. Rup Chand, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, ‘the Code’) challenges concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below declaring order dated 6.12.1980, passed by the Vice-Chancellor, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, as legal and valid. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed by both the Courts below. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant was working on the post of Accountant in the defendant University. On 2.9.1977, while working in the office of Deputy Estate Officer, HAU, Hisar, he kept the cash chest in a steel almirah and locked the same in RSA No. 769 of 1987 the presence of some officials. Leter at about 3.15 p.m. when he opened the steel almirah for making payment to some employees, the cash amounting to Rs. 4,748.74 paise was found missing. The case was reported to the police and an FIR No. 363 under Section 380 IPC was registered. However, the criminal case was filed as untraced after investigation by the police. On 12.10.1977, the plaintiff-appellant was suspended. On 7.12.1977, a charge sheet was issued to him for causing loss of Rs. 4,748.74 paise. After furnishing reply to the charge sheet by the plaintiff-appellant, Dr. M.S. Chaudhry, Associate Dean, College of Agriculture, HAU, Hisar, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer for conducting the inquiry. However, the Enquiry Officer in his report absolved the plaintiff-appellant of the charges levelled except holding him guilty of some irregularities. The Vice-Chancellor being appointing authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, on 6.12.1980, the Vice-Chancellor has passed the following order:- “(1) Sh. D.C. Madan be reinstated as Accountant. The period of suspension be treated as non-duty and Sh. Madan will get 80% of his salary for the period of suspension. (ii) One annual increment of Shri Madan is hereby stopped without cumulative effect. (iii) Sh. Madan will pay to the University the amount of Rs. 4748.74. The arrears due to Sh. Madan on account of difference of subsistence allowance 2 RSA No. 769 of 1987 would be adjusted against this recovery and the remaining amount will be recoverable in instalments of Rs. 100/- per month.” 3. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration alleging that the impugned order has been passed without complying with the principles of natural justice. The claim made by the plaintiff- appellant is that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded by the Vice-Chancellor nor any show cause notice was issued before passing the impugned order. 4. The defendant-respondents denied the allegations and contested the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant. It was urged that the recovery amount of Rs. 4748.74 paise was later on reduced to Rs. 3,661.58 paise on humanitarian grounds by the Vice Chancellor on reconsideration of the matter (Ex. P-5). 5. The trial Court has given a finding of fact that after the report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the matter was scrutinised by the Assistant Registrar, Employment on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor, who opined that the loss of cash chest occurred due to the negligence of the plaintiff-appellant (Ex. D-3). Concurring with the said opinion, the Vice-Chancellor has passed the impugned order against the plaintiff-appellant. The trial Court has found the order dated 6.12.1980 passed by the Vice-Chancellor as valid and in accordance with law. Subsequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiff- appellant was dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 24.10.1986, which is subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal. 3 RSA No. 769 of 1987 6. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant I am of the considered view that a paltry sum of Rs. 3,661.58 paise is involved and an appeal under Section 100 of the Code should not be entertained. The appeal was admitted on 22.7.1987 without framing any question of law, which in fact does not emerge from the concurrent findings. The impugned order was passed, inter alia, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,748.74 paise, on account of loss of cash kept in chest by the plaintiff-appellant, which was under his control. It has also come on record that the aforementioned amount was subsequently reduced to Rs. 3,661.58 paise. These are minor penalties which could be imposed even without any regular enquiry. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff-appellant was negligent in loss of the said amount from the chest. These are pure findings of facts. Therefore, after following the due procedure as provided for inflicting minor penalty in the statutory rules governing the service conditions of the plaintiff-appellant, the competent authority directed recovery of the said amount from him. These are concurrent findings of facts, which need not to be interfered by this Court. In view of above, I find no merit in the instant appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) November 27, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 4