Back
2009 Supreme(P&H) 286
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
Shakti Kumar
Versus
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation
C.R. No. 620 of 2009,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 4, 2009
The judgment in Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Sikander Singh does not establish a general legal principle that would render a recovery suit barred by law based on employee negligence.
Headnote:
Rejection of Plaint - Recovery Suit - Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC - Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) rules, 1970 - Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Sikander Singh, 2006(2) SCT 26 : AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1438
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of their application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC for rejection of plaint in a suit for recovery filed by the respondent-Corporation. The defendant argued that the recovery suit was not maintainable based on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Sikander Singh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgment cited by the defendant was distinguishable and not applicable to the present case. It held that the suit for recovery was not barred by law and dismissed the revision petition.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the recovery suit and the applicability of the judgment in Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Sikander Singh to the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the judgment cited by the defendant did not establish an abstract proposition of law that would render the recovery suit barred by law. It emphasized the specific findings and circumstances of the cited case and their inapplicability to the present case.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision to reject the application for rejection of plaint.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the defendant challenging the order dated 16.1.2009 passed by the Civil Judge(Junior Division), Zira vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC for rejection of plaint, has been dismissed.
2. The respondent-Corporation filed a suit for recovery on account of less excess in wheat stock and loss of interest due to late submission of delivery documents and on account of interest against the petitioners. It was alleged in the plaint that the aforesaid loss was caused to the Corporation by the defendants due to embezzlement and negligence of defendants.
3. The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioner by filing written statement raising various preliminary objections including that if any alleged loss is caused due to the negligence of the employee in performing the duty, it can be recovered in disciplinary proceedings and it cannot give rise to cause of action for suit for recovery of money of loss caused . It was further stated that the plaintiff-Corporation has already issued charge sheet to the petitioner under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) rules, 1970. On merits, the claim of the respondent-Corporation was denied by the petitioner and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
4. As per the averments in the petition, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that recovery suit filed by the respondent-Corporation was not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Sikander Singh, 2006(2) SCT 26 : AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1438.
5. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 16.1.2009 held that the aforesaid authority of the Honble Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case and rejected the application.
6. Challenging the aforesaid impugned order of the trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it has been authoritatively held by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporations case (supra) that in case loss has been caused by an employee due to his negligence in performance of duties, the same can be recovered in disciplinary proceedings by holding him guilty to the alleged misconduct and the same cannot give rise to cause of action for filing suit for recovery of money for loss caused. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the case in hand is fully covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Honble Supreme Court and the trial Court has erred at law while not accepting the prayer of the petitioners.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporations case (supra).
8. After pursuing the aforesaid judgment, I find that the facts in the aforesaid judgment are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the aforesaid judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India, respondent Sikander Singh and Tilak Raj were dismissed from service on the ground that a physical verification of stock was carried out while they were posted at Moga and the stock was found short. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 Tilak Raj was the actual holder of the stock and the defendant No. 2 Sikander Singh was negligent in making proper supervision of the godowns. Departmental proceedings were initiated against both of them and they were dismissed from service.
9. In the departmental proceedings against defendant No. 1, the appellate Authority directed his reinstatement subject to his depositing the remaining 400 bags of wheat found short. He complied with the said direction of the Appellate Authority. Despite that he was not reinstated. On a writ petition, the High Court directed his reinstatement. SLP was filed and vide order dated 2
