R.S.A. No. 1691 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1691 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.01.2009 The Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others ....Appellants Versus Rajinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The appellants are in Regular Second Appeal against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 7.12.2005 and the first Appellate Court dated 24.1.2008, which is barred by a delay of 17 days. The plaintiff/respondent retired from the service of the appellants on attaining the age of superannuation but he was not given his entire retiral benefits and a sum of Rs.1,72,935/- was recovered from his death-cum-retirement gratuity and pension. This amount was attributed to the shortages of oil and other materials in the transformers in the area of his posting during the tenure of service. Upon filing of the suit, the appellants maintained that the shortages were on account of the fault of the respondent. R.S.A. No. 1691 of 2008 (O&M) -2- The learned trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get full payment of his retiral benefits including pension and gratuity as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the recovery of Rs.1,72,935/- by the defendants through death-cum-retirement gratuity and pension of the plaintiff is illegal, null and void, against the principles of natural justice, against the rules and regulations?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to release the amount of Rs.1,72,935/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum as prayed for ?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for ?OPP 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 6. Relief. Upon appraisal of the evidence before it, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent had not been afforded any opportunity to confront the material against him and also concluded that the shortages as detected by the appellants were attributed to the fault of the appellants themselves. In appeal, the findings of the learned trial Court were affirmed. In the instant Regular Second Appeal the challenge has been made to the aforesaid judgments to contend that the respondent R.S.A. No. 1691 of 2008 (O&M) -3- who had caused loss to the appellants was liable to the action of the appellants and the recovery was justified. Reliance was placed on Rule 2.2(b) of the C.S.R. Vol.-II. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that the contention raised before this Court is totally misplaced. The aforesaid rule upon which reliance has been placed can be invoked if the incumbent is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to Govt. by misconduct or negligence, during his tenure of service. A perusal of the facts shows that no such proceedings had ever been initiated against the plaintiff-respondent. Rather, there is evidence on record in the shape of Exs.P-9 and P-10 exonerating the respondent of the allegations and in these proceedings it was found after investigation that the system of the Nigam was responsible for the shortages. In this view of the matter, when concurrent and consistent findings of facts have been recorded by the courts below and no substantial question of law is shown to have arisen in the present appeal, the same is dismissed on merit as well as on delay. 15.1.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss