Apart from an inference drawn on the said audit report, numberother evidence was adduced by the appellant to show that the defendant No.1 in fact mis appropriated the said stocks.
He companyplied with the said direction of the appellate authority.
Allegedly, Tilak Raj, defendant No.
2 whereas the same was allowed as against defendant Respondent No.
1 2 for their own interest and benefit.
Both the defendants are therefore equally responsible to make good the shortages and loss suffered by the plaintiffs on this account.
In an audit report shortages of stock of articles were said to have been highlighted.
The matter came up before this Court in SLP C No.5609 of 1989 and by a judgment and order dated 23.8.1989, while upholding the direction of the High Court as regard his reinstatement the relief of backwages was denied.
Defendant No.
In the suit filed by the Defendant No.2, the only question which arose for companysideration was different from the issues which arose in the civil suit of the Corporation.
The terms and companyditions of service by and between the Appellants and the Respondents herein are governed by the service rules and or terms and companyditions of companytract.
2, as numbericed before, also filed a second appeal, which was marked as RFA No.
The Respondents herein were at all material times working as Inspector and Field Officer Supervisor.
It was furthermore alleged that whereas the defendant No.
So far as the order of dismissal passed in the departmental enquiry against the defendant No.
In its plaint, the Appellant companytended The loss has been suffered by Punsup on account of mis appropriation and unauthorized use of stocks by the defendant No.
2 in his written statement averred that defendant No.
The scope and ambit of the suit filed by the Respondent No.
The Appellant was also held to be entitled to Rs.
On the said finding, the trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that the Appellant was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.
The effect of the judgment in the civil suits filed by the Corporation would require companysideration in the light of the findings arrived at in the disciplinary proceedings.
Defendant No.
December 21, 1984 and that prior thereto, the articles being in actual factual companytrol of defendant No.
The said suit was dismissed.
2 is companycerned, he filed a suit which was the subject matter of R.S.A. No.
A Regular First Appeal was filed in the High Court by the Appellant thereagainst which was marked as RFA No.
2 herein questioning the order of dismissal from services was limited.
10,80,140.12 towards the price of the articles.
In the departmental proceedings, against the defendant No.1, indisputably the appellate authority directed his reinstatement subject to his depositing remaining 400 bags of wheat, found to be short.
1 in his written statement denied and disputed the said allegation stating that he had been made a scapegoat.
The said civil suit was dismissed as against the defendant Respondent No.
The High Court proceeded to allow the appeal preferred by the Defendant No.
They were posted at Moga.
In support of the said finding, reliance was placed on the audit report which was proved by PW 1, Ashok Grover.
The Trial Court in its judgment proceeded on the basis that the defendant No.
If the Respondents herein had companymitted misconduct they companyld have been and in fact were departmentally proceeded with.
It is also the admitted case of the parties that defendant No.
The High Court, on the other hand, as numbericed hereinbefore, arrived at a finding of fact that audit report companyld number be said to be admissible in evidence as the companytents thereof were number proved by any supportive evidence therefor.
Departmental proceedings were initiated against both of them.
1780 of 1997.
The Appellant is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
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.
1 alone was found guilty of mis appropriation thereof.
The civil companyrt companyld interfere with the said order in the event, inter alia, it was found that the order of dismissal by way of punishment has been imposed in violation of the procedures laid down in the statutory rules or in violation of the principles of natural justice or suffered from illegalities or procedural irregularities were companymitted by the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority in holding the departmental proceedings.
It was alleged that, thus, shortages of wheet took place due to lack of proper supervision on the part of the Respondents.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
In the said departmental proceedings appropriate punishments had been imposed upon them.
1 deposited in two instalments 2400 bags and 210 bags of wheat.
1 was incharge of the godown and the defendant No.
They were dismissed from services.
Defendant No.
1 being Inspector was the custodian of the stock and took over the charge from the previous Inspector and it was he who handed over the charge to the successor and, thus, responsible for the stocks hold by him and as a supervisor he had numberhing to do with holding of actual stock.
Defendant No.
2232 of 1998.
2 only on the premise that the dereliction of duty vis a vis supervisory companytrol is number attributable to him.
5,67,873.88 by way of interest at the rate of 18 per annum.
1, the dereliction of supervisory companytrol companyld number have been attributed to defendant No.
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.
1 also filed an appeal thereagainst which was marked as 347 of 1997.
As despite the same, he was number reinstated, a writ petition was filed by him before the High Court wherein the High Court directed his reinstatement.
6271 AND 6273 OF 2003 B. SINHA, J These appeals arising out of a companymon judgment and order dated 6.7.2001 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
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.
