Bhajan Singh vs Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Another

A.N. Jindal, J.—A civil suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff-respondent Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (herein referred as, ''the respondent'') against Bhajan Singh, Inspector Grade I, Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Ludhiana. The trial court while placing reliance on the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd Vs. Sikander Singh, , allowed the application and rejected the plaint. The petitioner filed the appeal which was allowed, as such it has invited this revision petition. As a matter of fact, the judgment passed in Sikandar Singh''s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Sikandar Singh''s case, the defendants were already reinstated pursuant to the orders of the High Court and they were also asked to pay the penalty and had also deposited the gunny bags as directed by the court. But, in the instant case, a sum of Rs. 1,16,547/-i.e. Rs. 91026/-on account of shortage of empty gunny bags and Rs. 25521/-on account of loss of interest is due against the petitioner. The case of the respondent is that gunny bags were found short on physical verification.

The enquiry as well as recovery proceedings are parallel in nature and any damage caused at the hands of the government employee could be recovered by way of filing a suit. At the same time, the defendant could be proceeded against departmentally for taking a penal action against him. The respondent corporation in its plaint has submitted that the loss has been suffered by the PUNSUP on account of mis-appropriation and un authorised used of the stock by the defendants No. 1 and 2 for their own use and benefit, therefore, both the defendants-petitioners were equally responsible to make good the shortages. The loss was not for sheer negligence but it was intentional to cause benefit to themselves and cause loss to the State. As such, the authorities are not barred to recover the said loss by way of filing independent suit and it was not obligatory in all cases to file departmental proceedings against the defaulting employee. The Sikandar Singh''s case (supra) was also distinguished in case Shakti Kumar vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and others 2009 (5) RCR (Civil) 817 wherein it was observed that there is no abstract proposition of law to the effect that in case the accused/employee due to his negligence in performing his duties causes loss to the corporation, the same can be recovered in disciplinary proceedings only and by holding him guilty of the alleged misconduct and the same cannot give rise to the cause of action for filing suit for recovery of money for the loss caused.

The department cannot wait till the departmental proceedings are finalized and recovery is ordered during those enquiry proceedings. Some times the departmental proceedings cannot be concluded till the date of the superannuation of the employee and the emoluments are not sufficient to compensate the loss. The employees, during the pendency of the departmental proceedings dispose of the property and as such the orders of attachment before judgment or stay alienating the property are required to be taken. It would also be pertinent to mention here that enquiry proceedings are summary in nature whereas the suits are decided after the trial. The enquiry officers could be levelled allegations of bias or prejudice whereas the court act impartially. The enquiry officers are not so competent to deal with matters so judiciously as the court, therefore, such situations are difficult to be met with if the department remains waiting for effecting the recovery through the departmental proceedings. It would be difficult to hold enquiry for every subsequent defalcation after initiating enquiry proceedings. Resultantly, the plaint could not be rejected merely on the ground that only departmental proceedings are maintainable against the employee and not the suit for recovery.

Finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.