IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.3663 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.4.2010 Dharambir Singh. ....... Appellant through Shri P.L.Verma, Advocate. Versus Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad and others. ....... Respondents through Shri P.S.Sullar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.10201-C of 2007 The application is allowed and delay of 32 days in refiling of the appeal is condoned. R.S.A.No.3667 of 2007 (O&M) The plaintiff is in the second appeal which is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 11.10.2006 and 7.5.2007 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the District Judge, Faridabad (referred to hereinafter as `the first appellate Court') whereby his suit and appeal have been dismissed. On the basis of audit report by which embezzlement of R.S.A.No.3663 of 2007 -2- .... government money stood established, the defendants-respondents proceeded against the plaintiff by issuing a show cause notice for retiring him from service compulsorily and by way of separate proceedings, also proceeded against him for recovery of the amount which was allegedly embezzled by him along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. He challenged the action of the defendants by saying that while resorting to the disciplinary proceedings, the authorities concerned have not followed the procedure as laid down by the Punishment and Appeal Rules applicable to him and further that all the orders passed in that regard were illegal. He further prayed that recovery cannot be effected from him as he had filed an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority which is still pending. The defendants had contested the averments of the plaintiff and pleaded that the irregularities committed by the plaintiff were established during the audit and he had himself indirectly admitted this embezzlement by depositing a sum of Rs.22,88,585/-. It was further pleaded that according to the calculations, the plaintiff was also required to deposit Rs.12,56,415/- which included the amount due and interest and Rs.2,57,535/- against the embezzlement made by him during his posting as Token Tax Clerk. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff while the first appellate Court dismissed his appeal, which has resulted in the filing of the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and that the plaintiff R.S.A.No.3663 of 2007 -3- .... had deposited the entire amount and nothing was due against him. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants- respondents has contended that the impugned judgments are perfectly in order and no interference therewith is called for. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have perused the impugned judgments. A reading of the judgment of the trial Court reveals that it was established on the basis of the report of audit that an amount of Rs.26,07,205/- was embezzled by the plaintiff. According to the own pleadings of the plaintiff, he had deposited an amount of Rs.22,88535/-, but he has been unable to show that the entire amount due was deposited by him. Before this Court as well, he failed to show that he was willing to deposit the remaining due amount. On 21.1.2010, the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant had stated that the plaintiff was willing to explore the possibility of settlement if the interest component is reduced so as to enable him to deposit the amount in question. Thereupon, the counsel for the defendants-respondents had sought time to seek instructions. However, today when the matter was taken up for hearing, the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant stated that the plaintiff had deposited the entire amont and, therefore, there was no question of his further depositing any amount. I am afraid, the plea of the plaintiff-appellant cannot be accepted. No attempt was made by the plaintiff to assail the findings of the R.S.A.No.3663 of 2007 -4- .... Courts below which are concurrent in nature and based on facts. He has not been able to show that the entire amount due has been satisfied. Rather, it is his case that he has deposited Rs.22,88535/-. In so far as the interest is concerned, in my opinion, the defendants-respondents are entitled to the same as the plaintiff-appellant had withheld the amount dishonestly. Thus, the plaintiff-appellant has failed to satisfy this Court on any aspect of the matter. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and, therefore, the same is dismissed. In view of the above, all pending miscellaneous applications are also dismissed. April 28,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge