Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd vs Sikander Singh

The Respondents herein were at all material times working as Inspector and Field Officer/Supervisor. They were posted at Moga. A physical verification of stocks was carried out from 21st June, 1985 to 26th June, 1985; pursuant whereto shortages of 4513 bags of wheat were said to have been found.

It was alleged that, thus, shortages of wheet took place due to lack of proper supervision on the part of the Respondents. It was furthermore alleged that whereas the defendant No. 1 was the actual holder of the stock, the defendant No. 2 being Senior Superintendent was negligent in making proper supervision of the godowns.

So far as the order of dismissal passed in the departmental enquiry against the defendant No. 2 is concerned, he filed a suit which was the subject matter of R.S.A. No. 2232 of 1998 before the High Court; the suit as also the first appeal having been dismissed by orders dated 19.11.1992 and 23.2.1998 respectively.

The Appellant herein filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Moga against the Respondents herein for recovery of the price of the quantity of wheat which had been found to be short.

The said civil suit was dismissed as against the defendant Respondent No. 2 whereas the same was allowed as against defendant Respondent No. 1. A Regular First Appeal was filed in the High Court by the Appellant thereagainst which was marked as RFA No. 1780 of 1997. Defendant No. 1 also filed an appeal thereagainst which was marked as 347 of 1997. Defendant No. 2, as noticed before, also filed a second appeal, which was marked as RFA No. 2232 of 1998. By reason of the impugned judgment the High Court as regard the liability of defendant No. 1 held:

The Trial Court in its judgment proceeded on the basis that the defendant No. 1 was incharge of the godown and the defendant No. 2 was to act as a supervisor and in view of the fact that admittedly shortages were found during physical verification of the stock in the godown, the defendant No. 1 alone was found guilty of mis-appropriation thereof. In support of the said finding, reliance was placed on the audit report which was proved by PW-1, Ashok Grover. Apart from an inference drawn on the said audit report, no other evidence was adduced by the appellant to show that the defendant No.1 in fact mis-appropriated the said stocks. On the said finding, the trial court came to the conclusion that the Appellant was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 10,80,140.12 towards the price of the articles. The Appellant was also held to be entitled to Rs. 5,67,873.88 by way of interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Further interest of 18% per annum on the principal amount was also directed to be paid.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that in view of the findings arrived at by the High Court, the suit filed by the Appellant herein being not maintainable have rightly been dismissed.

So far as the second appeal preferred by the Defendant No. 2 being RSA No. 2232 of 1998 is concerned, it appears, that no substantial question of law had been framed by the High Court as was mandatorily required to be done in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We have noticed hereinbefore that the Defendant No. 2 filed a suit questioning the order imposing punishment of removal or dismissal from his service. The said suit was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the Defendant No. 2 was also dismissed. In the second appeal, indisputably, the High Court was obligated to formulate a substantial question of law. The High Court proceeded to allow the appeal preferred by the Defendant No. 2 only on the premise that the dereliction of duty vis-a-vis supervisory control is not attributable to him. The effect of the judgment in the civil suits filed by the Corporation would require consideration in the light of the findings arrived at in the disciplinary proceedings.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law.

For the reasons aforementioned, Civil Appeal Nos. 6271 and 6273 of 2003 are dismissed and Civil Appeal No. 6269 of 2003 is allowed. No costs.