Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pb. Markfed vs Nettar Singh on 22 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054315
RSA No. 3593 of 1997 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:054315
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(211) RSA No. 3593 of 1997 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 22.04.2024
The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation
Limited, Chandigarh and another
...Appellants
Versus
Nettar Singh and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Tahaf Bains, Advocate for the respondents.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment
and decree dated 15.04.1993 of the trial court by which the suit filed by
the respondent-plaintiff No. 1 challenging the order dated 19.02.1987
imposing recovery on respondent-plaintiff No. 1 of ₹70,056/- along with
interest has been held to be bad and not binding upon the respondent-
plaintiff No. 1 as well as judgment and decree dated 04.04.1997 of the
lower appellate court by which the appeal filed by the appellants-
defendants was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants argues that
once the allegation of loss alleged against the respondent-plaintiff No. 1
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054315
RSA No. 3593 of 1997 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:054315
has been proved against him in the departmental enquiry, the Court
cannot interfere keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
present case, hence, the order dated 19.02.1987 imposing punishment of
recovery upon the respondent-plaintiff No. 1 of ₹70,056/- is liable to be
upheld.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs submits that in
the present case, even in the enquiry proceedings initiated against them, it
has not been found that there was any malafide intention in shifting the
procured wheat from Amargarh to the storage accommodation available at
Malerkotla and in the absence of any malafide, the amount incurred for
transportation of wheat from Amargarh to Malerkotla could not have been
recovered from the respondents-plaintiffs and the courts below have
rightly come to the conclusion that said decision of the respondents-
plaintiffs was required keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
present case, hence, the judgments and decrees of the courts are liable to
be upheld.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. It may be noticed that the present appeal was filed against the
judgments and decrees of the courts below in the year 1997. There is no
interim order and it has already come on record that the respondent-
plaintiff No. 1 has already died and the judgments and decrees of the
courts below already stand executed.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054315
RSA No. 3593 of 1997 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:054315
6. Even otherwise, the punishment of recovery of ₹70,056/-
was imposed upon the respondent-plaintiff No. 1 only on the ground that
the respondent-plaintiff No. 1, who was working as a Branch Manager
with the appellants-defendants posted at Malerkotla and was Incharge for
purchasing of the wheat for the crop year 1984 and had purchased the
wheat, which was to be secured for a period of more than two months
before the said purchased wheat was to be dispatched, the same was
procured at Amargarh but was stored at Malerkotla. The allegation is that
the wheat should have been stored at Amargarh rather than at Malerkotla.
The lower appellate court has considered all these facts in paragraph 8 of
the judgment, wherein, it has been mentioned that the storage facility at
Malerkotla was good as, the wheat was to be stored for a period of more
than two months before the same was to be released and further, the
situation at Amargarh was tensed as one person was killed by the terrorist
and Bhartiya Kisan Union had also started agitation during that period at
the said place and in case, the agitation would have continued, the wheat
could not have been released in July, 1984 and the decision of the
respondent-plaintiff No. 1 was not malafide in any manner but was due to
the facts and circumstances prevalent at the relevant time and cannot
amount to embezzlement.
7. Once, the finding of a fact as noticed here-in-before has been
returned by both the courts below and nothing has been shown to this
Court that the said finding was perverse to any evidence, which has come
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054315
RSA No. 3593 of 1997 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:054315
on record, this Court will not like to interfere at this stage when, the
respondent-plaintiff No. 1 has already died and the judgments and decrees
of the courts below have already been complied with.
8. Keeping in view the fact that no perversity in the impugned
order has been shown to this Court, no ground is made out for any
interference in the present appeal.
9. Dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
April 22th, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
