Registrar had passed an award for 23,070.17 along with interest and cost but later modified to 10,000/- by the Revisional Authority for the amount covered under the limit of surety. The contention of the petitioner is that the loss could not be attributed to any willful conduct on the part of the deceased employee and that the contingency for enforcing the surety did not exist. The reasoning as found in the order was that his wife had stated in Civil Court, while obtaining the declaratory decree was that he had gone to Hoshiarpur to receive his pension from Treasury on 01.06.1981 (since he was an Ex-Army person and he was entitled to Army pension) and this statement was held to be inconsistent with the plea that the deceased had gone to the Bank to remit the amount but was abducted and found missing. I cannot see any inconsistency in this situation, for, it was perfectly possible for a person to go to Treasury to collect his pension and at the same time also attend to his official duty of remitting the amount belonging to the Society with the Bank. The question of enforcing the surety would arise only in a case of a willful loss but not in a case where the petitioner's son was said to have been abducted and was not heard of later from 01.06.1981. I will hold that the loss was not on account of any willful conduct of employee such as dereliction of duty or fraud but in the manner in which the loss has been occasioned, I hold that the contingency for enforcement of surety did not exist and award passed against the petitioner was not justified.
