RSA No. 2851 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2851 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 27 , 2009 Jagan Nath ...... Appellant Versus The Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant that recovery order dated 4.4.97 is illegal. The undisputed facts are that the appellant was incharge of receiving consignment and received a consignment which was not of the requisite weight and thus admittedly caused loss to the respondent. Recovery order in this regard had been challenged by way of the instant suit which, as mentioned above, has been dismissed by the courts below. The following questions have been proposed:- RSA No. 2851 of 2008 a) Whether an alleged loss which has been made good by an employee can be recovered from the employee by saying that the alleged loss and the recovery which has been made good pertains to different stations even though the profit and loss and balance sheet of the respondent corporation is made one? b) Whether once the order of punishment which is passed upon an inquiry report is proved to be illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, can still be ignored by the civil court on the ground that the civil court cannot sit as a court of appeal over the inquiry and on the order of punishing authority? c) Whether the case of an employee who has made good the loss while working at one station of respondent corporation can be said to be different and distinct from a case of another employee who have made good loss by working at different stations though the profit and loss account and balance sheet of the respondent corporation is one? d) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below are illegal, void, suffers from material irregularities and as such are liable to be set aside? e) Whether while passing the impugned judgment and decree, the learned courts below erred in law and fact, misread, misconstrued and misinterpreted the oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record as also the mandatory and settled proposition of law? Learned counsel has argued only questions No. (a) and ( c ). The argument is that one Sh.M.P.Gupta who had also similarly caused loss to the respondent was later on permitted to make good the loss by increasing the price at which iron was sold to the customers. The argument is that the appellant also subsequently made good that loss by selling iron at a higher rate. In my opinion this argument is farfetched. An employee cannot be allowed to make good loss which has been caused by overcharging customers and the fact that such an illegal procedure was condoned by the RSA No. 2851 of 2008 respondent in the case of Mr.M.P.Gupta would be no ground to give same benefit to the appellant also. Consequently holing questions argued viz. Questions No. (a) and ( c ) against the appellant,this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 27 , 2009 sunita