PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. VARINDER KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Punjab State Electricity Board was partially successful in the trial court, but has been non-suited by the lower appellate court and being aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal.

(2.) Defendant-respondent Varinder Kumar Gupta was employed as Section Officer/Junior Engineer with the plaintiff. The defendant absented from duty since 18.12.1975 onwards. The defendant filed civil suit No. 8 of 25.01.1996, which was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19.08.1998 holding the defendant herein to be still in service. The plaintiff herein was given right to dismiss or suspend the defendant from service as per rules immediately after issuing posting orders to the defendant herein. The said judgment and decree were upheld up to Hon'ble Apex Court. The defendant herein then joined duty on 27.11.2000 and retired on 31.08.2004. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff served the defendant with charge-sheet regarding his absence from duty and regarding non-return of material and regarding some other charges. Inquiry report dated 23.12.2005 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer after retirement of the defendant, upholding the charges against the defendant. However, since the defendant had already retired, it would have been redundant to impose punishment of dismissal from service or stoppage of increments. Consequently, the punishing authority decided that the suit be filed against the defendant for recovery of the amount of the material, which was not returned by the defendant. The plaintiff pleaded that the amount of the material not returned by the defendant in the year 1975 was Rs. 59,073.34 paise, to which the plaintiff was entitled with interest @ 18% per annum or in the alternative, the present value of the said material, when the suit was filed, was claimed to be Rs. 3,03,498.93 paise, which amount was claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. The defendant resisted the suit and controverted the plaintiff's allegations. It was also pleaded that no law permits recovery claim for material supplied before 1976. Suit of the plaintiff is not within limitation. Averments of the plaintiff were controverted.

(3.) Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2008, partly decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 59,073.34 paise with interest @ 6% per annum from the due date till realization. However, first appeal preferred by the defendant against judgment and decree of the trial court has been allowed by learned District Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009 and suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal.