Dismissed

Anand Parkash Singla v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Feb 2012RSA/3145/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal was dismissed. The High Court held that the suit for recovery of government loss based on a 1988 memo attributing negligence to the appellant was not barred by the 30-year limitation period. The court ruled that the appellant could not raise defences regarding non-charge sheet or natural justice without challenging the foundational memo first.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; decree of lower courts affirmed.

Anand Parkash Singla Vs State of Haryana… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

RSA No. 3145 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 24.2.2012.

Anand Parkash Singla

--Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana & others

¶7

--Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶9

Present:Ms. Anju Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

¶11

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J

¶12

The defendant-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.

¶13

The plaintiffs, State of Haryana instituted a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.51,456.52 ps from defendant no.1 along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual realization. Plaintiffs pleaded that defendant no.1 was appointed as Sub Divisional Engineer, P.W.D. (B&R) and remained posted for the period August, 1969 to January, 1970 as Sub Divisional Engineer, Sub Division Naraingarh. During such period earth work of Shahzadpur-Mouli Road was got executed from departmental labour and defendant no.1 was required to take measurement of work as also to check the measured work done by the Section Officer/Junior Engineer in the light of the provisions of the P.W.D. Manual. The earth work on the aforementioned stretch of road was got executed through departmental labour on muster roll basis and the measurement thereof was got recorded by Sh. Sat Narain, Section Officer/Junior Engineer. Such quantity of earth work entered by the Section Officer/Junior Engineer worked out to the extent of 10,83,500 cubic feet. The expenditure on the earth work got done by defendant no.1 worked out

¶14

RSA No. 3145 of 2011(O&M) -2-

¶15

to Rs.2,17,418.14 ps which included an amount of Rs.15,019.15 ps for making a jeepable road. As such after excluding the aforementioned amount, the net expenditure on earth work worked out to Rs.2,02,398.99 ps. It was pleaded that a departmental inquiry was got conducted against Sh.Sat Narain, the then Section Officer/Junior Engineer and Sh. S.C. Jain, Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (B&R) Branch, Ambala Cantt. In pursuance to the inquiry findings three officials namely Sh.S.C. Jain, Sh. Sat Narain and Sh.Anand Parkash Singla, defendant no.1 were held equally responsible for not having performed their duty properly while checking the measurement and supervising the work on the road in question and as such a loss of Rs.1,54,369.57 ps had been caused to the State of Haryana, P.W.D. (B&R) Branch. Such loss so quantified was to be shared equally by the three officials. Sh.Sat Narain, the then Section Officer/Junior Engineer had already deposited the amount of loss attributable to him and proceedings to recover the share of loss from Sh.S.C. Jain, the then Executive Engineer were in progress. It was stated that defendant no.1 had left the service of Haryana Govt., P.W.D. (B&R) Branch on 4.2.1970 and had joined as Sub Divisional Engineer in Marketing Board, Haryana. Repeated requests had been made to defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 i.e. the Marketing Board, Haryana to deposit the amount of loss attributable to him i.e. Rs.51,456.52 ps but he had failed to deposit the same. Against such factual backdrop the suit for recovery of the amount along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till actual realization had been instituted.

¶16

Defendant no.1 contested the suit raising the preliminary issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation. He stated that he had

¶17

RSA No. 3145 of 2011(O&M)

¶18

-3-

¶19

remained Sub Divisional Engineer, Naraingarh for the period in question i.e. August, 1969 to January, 1970 only on ad hoc basis. He had never been associated with any inquiry as regards the alleged loss and as such he was not liable to pay any amount. Defendant no.1 stated that he had left the department 32 years back and now stands retired. He further stated that during his tenure he had always performed his duties with due care and there was no question of any loss having been caused to the State on account of his work and conduct. Defendant no.1 further stated that he became aware as regards the liability to pay a sum of Rs.51,456.52 ps as per memo dated 18.3.1988 only after going through the contents of the plaint. The Marketing Board, Haryana, defendant no.2 also filed a separate written statement taking up the preliminary objection of non-joinder of necessary parties stating that the Board had been unnecessarily dragged into litigation and there was no claim that had been set up by the plaintiff against defendant no.2. On merits, it was stated that defendant no.1 had been compulsorily retired from the service vide order dated 22.6.2000.

¶20

Upon the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

¶21

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.51,456.52 Ps with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum on account of loss caused to the State of Haryana on the grounds mentioned in the plaint?OPP.

¶22

Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD.

¶23

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD.

¶24

Whether the plaintiffs have stopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit?OPD.

¶25

Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

¶26

RSA No. 3145 of 2011(O&M)

¶27

-4-

¶28

Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is hopelessly barred by limitation?OPD.

¶29

Relief.”

¶30

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and

¶31

held the State of Haryana to recover the amount in question i.e. Rs.51,456.52 ps from defendant no.1 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. Aggrieved of the same, defendant-appellant, Anand Parkash Singla preferred a civil appeal and vide impugned judgement dated 7.4.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala the appeal has been dismissed. Resultantly, defendantappellant is in second appeal before this Court.

¶32

Mrs. Anju Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that no liability could have been fastened upon the defendant-appellant as he had never been charge sheeted for the alleged loss and nor had he ever been associated with any inquiry. The copy of the inquiry report had not been supplied to him and even the final order passed in the year 1988 holding the three officials including the defendantappellant responsible for having caused loss to the State Govt. had not been served upon him. Learned counsel would also strenuously argue that the suit itself was highly time barred and should have been dismissed only on the ground of limitation.

¶33

I find myself unable to accept the contentions raised by learned counsel appearing for the appellant for the reasons recorded herein below.

¶34

Ex.P-9 is the the memo dated 18.3.1988 attributing a loss of Rs.1,54,369.57 ps. and for making recovery of 1/3^rd amount each from Sh.S.C. Jain, Sh. Sat Narain and Sh. Anand Parkash Singla, i.e. the defendant-appellant. No challenge has been laid to such order dated

¶35

RSA No. 3145 of 2011(O&M)

¶36

-5-

¶37

18.3.1988 by the defendant-appellant. Even if, it was to be believed that such order was never served upon the defendant-appellant and he became aware of the same only upon the filing of the suit by the State in the year 1999, still, admittedly no steps have been taken by the defendant-appellant to question the legality of such order dated 18.3.1988. The merit of the submissions raised by learned counsel for the appellant as regards nonassociation with any inquiry proceedings, violation of the principles of natural justice etc. could be gone into only in proceedings which could have been initiated by the defendant-appellant to question the legality or otherwise of such memo dated 18.3.1988, wherein a certain loss had been attributed against the three officials. The suit for recovery was based upon such memo dated 18.3.1988 and in such recovery proceedings instituted at the hands of the State Govt., it would not be open for the defendantappellant to raise all such submissions without even impugning the basic order dated 18.3.1988, wherein he had been held responsible for having caused loss to the State Govt.

¶38

Learned counsel was at pains to argue that the suit itself was highly time barred. Such submission is also without merit. Section 2 sub clause (j) of the Limitation Act, 1963 defines the period of limitation to mean the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the Schedule and “prescribed period” means the time of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The relevant entry in the Schedule prescribing periods of limitation contained in Part (ix) governing suits relating to miscellaneous matters would read in the following terms:-

¶39

RSA No. 3145 of 2011(O&M) -6-

¶40

“THE SCHEDULE

¶41

PERIODS OF LIMITATION

¶42

(See Section 2(j) and 3) FIRST DIVISION-SUITS

¶43

Description of suit	Period of limitation	Time from which period
		begins to run

¶44

PART I-PART VIII

¶45

XXX XXX XXX

¶46

PART IX-SUITS RELATING TO MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

¶47

112. Any suit (except a suit Thirty years	When the period of
before the Supreme Court in	limitation would begin to
the exercise of its original	run under this Act against a
jurisdiction) by or on behalf	like suit by a private person.
of the Central Govt. or any
State Govt., including the
Govt. of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

¶48

A bare reading of the relevant entry in the Schedule under the Limitation Act, 1963 contained in Part (ix) would make it clear that any suit by or on behalf of the Central Govt. or any State Govt. would be 30 years. In the present case, the basic order, wherein a loss had been attributable to the defendant-appellant was passed on 18.3.1988, even though, the sum related to execution of work is for the period August, 1969 to January, 1970. The present suit had been instituted on 28.8.1999 and as such the suit was filed by the State of Haryana within the period of limitation.

¶49

For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgement and decree passed by the courts below in decreeing the suit for recovery of the amount in question against the defendant-appellant.

¶50

RSA No. 3145 of 2011(O&M) -7-

¶51

The present second appeal must fail as it does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law. The appeal, accordingly, is dismissed.

¶52

Appeal dismissed.

¶53

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶54

24.2.2012. lucky

¶55

Whether to be reported? Yes.

Anand Parkash Singla v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Parkash Singla v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhwinder Singh and Ors. Vs Tarlok Singh and Anr.

Bimla Devi Alias Menakshi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

(O&M)Mohd. Ranjan Vs Bhago

Jassa Singh Vs Charan Singh etc.

Bachittar Singh and Ors. Vs Babu Singh

LIC of India Vs Vishwa Mittar Sondhi