MATHURA DAS Vs. SECYOF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by three defendants in a suit instituted by the Secretary of State for India in Council for recovery of Rs. 3,016-4-5 under the following circumstances: One Mutsaddi Lal was a cashier attached to the Thomason Engineering College at Roorkee. He went on leave on 3 August 1917. Hira Lal, defendant 1, who was a store-keeper in the said college, was appointed to officiate for him from 7 August 1917. Hira Lal was required to find sureties for a sum of Rs. 2,000 to indemnify the Secretary of State for any loss arising either from defalcation or neglect during the period of his incumbency. On 7 August 1917, the defendants executed a security bond in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) Mutsaddi Lal went on leave on 3 August. The parties are agreed that the term of Hira Lal's incumbency during his officiating appointment lasted from 7th August 1917 to 12 October 1917, when Mutsaddi Lal returned and Hira Lal reverted to his substantive appointment as store-keeper. On 1 April 1919, Mutsaddi Lal went on leave for a second time, Hira Lal was again appointed to officiate in his place, Mutsaddi Lal appears to have submitted his resignation on or about the 15 July 1920, a date about the correctness of which we are by no means certain, and Hira Lal was confirmed in his place. No second security bond was executed by the defendants on the occasion of Hira Lal's appointment upon the retirement of Mutsaddi Lal.

(3.) No loss appears to have accrued to the Government by reason of any act or omission on the part of Hira Lal during his first incumbency. On or about the 18th October 1921, Rs. 3,016-4-5 appear to have mysteriously disappeared from the office safe which was in the charge and control of Hira Lal. The suit which has given rise to the present appeal was instituted on 31 March 1925, against Hira Lal and the present appellants for recovery of Rs. 3,016-4-5 on the allegation that the above loss accrued to the Government by reason of neglect on the part of Hira Lal and that defendants 2 to 4 were liable for the same under the terms of the surety bond executed by them in favour of the Secretary of State on 15 August 1917.