JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant – Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through its officers, have preferred the present appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2010, passed by the District Judge – I, Bhandara in Regular Civil Appeal No.102/2006, arising out of judgment and decree dated 08.03.2006 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhandara in Regular Civil Suit No.187/2001. The suit filed by respondent – plaintiff was decreed and the appeal came to be dismissed.

The appellants shall be, hereinafter, referred to as the “defendants” and the respondent as the “plaintiff”.

3. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction contending that the order dated 17.11.2000 passed by the Executive Engineer, Gosekhurd Left Canal Division, Wahi is illegal. The injunction sought was that the defendants be restrained from recovery of the amount from the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff was working as Engineer and was posted at Ambadi under the office of the defendant no.3 – Executive Engineer, Tekepar Left Irrigation Division, Ambadi. He was on field duty and was in possession of Pentex Automatic Level with stand and levelling staff. He had kept the said instrument in the hut of the Watchman employed with the contractor namely Reddy Brothers & Company. On that day, the plaintiff had carried out certain measurements and other works. Once the measurement work was done, these instruments were kept in godown on 27.03.1999.

5. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was constrained to do so, since there was no labour or other official person who could carry the same to the headquarters which was situated at 15 km. from the site. The official was not provided despite several requests from the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, kept the measurement instruments at the godown of the contractor. At the night of 27.03.1999, there occurred fire in the godown and these instruments along with other articles were burnt. The incident was reported to the head office and burnt instruments were deposited in the office. A show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff vide notice dated 13.08.1999, calling upon him to show cause why value of the said instruments should not be recovered from him on the ground of negligence. The said notice was replied. The defendant no.3 – Executive Engineer, however, vide the impugned order, directed the recovery of the amount of Rs.33,465/- from the plaintiff. The plaintiff responded stating therein that he was never negligent. The incident was an accident and was an act of God and requested to review the order. He further stated that no legal inquiry has been caused and, therefore, the said order should be revoked. The plaintiff apprehended recovery of the amount and hence this suit. The defendants resisted the claim by filing the written statement. One of the objections was that the civil court has no jurisdiction and the appropriate forum was the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT). Both the courts below have held that the civil court will have jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit.

In view of the subsequent developments, the plaintiff has amended the suit and sought order of refund of recovery amount, which the courts below have granted.

6. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

“Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to decide the matter in respect of recovery of an amount sought by the appellant–V.I.D.C. from the respondent for the destruction of certain instruments as it would pertain to service of the respondent as a State Government Servant?”

7. Learned counsel for the defendants has invited my attention to the cross-examination of the plaintiff. He has deposed that his first appointment was with the Irrigation Department of the State Government. Subsequent to his appointment in the Irrigation Department, the defendant no.1 – VIDC was formed. He was working in the VIDC on deputation. He is a