Bangalore District Court
The Karnataka Urban Water vs Sri A.J.Shankar on 18 August, 2016
Form No.9
(Civil) Title
Sheet for
Judgment
in Suits
R.P. 91
PRESENT: SRI S.H.HOSAGOUDAR,
B.Sc.,LL.B.,[Spl]
XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 18th day of August 2016
PLAINTIFF: THE KARNATAKA URBAN WATER
SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD,
No.6, Jala Bhavan, BTM Layout,
Bhanneraghatta Road,
Bangalore-560 029.
Rep. by its Managing Director
Sri K.H.Gopala Krishne Gowda.
[By Sri B.M.Adiga, Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANT: Sri A.J.SHANKAR
No.1180, 4th Cross,
Chamundeshwari Nagar,
Mandya.
[By Sri APS, Advocate]
Date of institution of the : 18/2/2008
suit
Nature of the suit : For recovery of money
Date of commencement of : 20/8/2009
recording of the evidence
2 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
Date on which the : 18/8/2016
Judgment was
pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
7 6 --
(S.H. Hosagoudar)
XXVII ACCJ: B'LORE.
Plaintiff filed this suit against defendants
directing him to pay to the plaintiff Board
Rs.33,83,310.70 (Rupees thirty three lakh eighty three
thousand three hundred ten and paise seventy only)
and award future interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of
this suit till realization.
2. In brief, the plaintiff's case is as under:
That the plaintiff is the statutory Board
established by the Government of Karnataka under
the provisions of Karnataka Urban Water Supply and
Drainage Board Act, 1973 and as its Head Office at
Bangalore. The main object of the said Board is to
provide drinking water and sewerage facilities to all
urban areas of Karnataka except Bangalore. The
3 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
defendant joined the services of the plaintiff Board on
7/12/1977 and in the year 1992, he was working as a
First Division Store Keeper at Mysore Division of the
plaintiff Board. That the defendant was transferred
from Mysore to Bellary and after transfer on
30/6/1992, the defendant handed over charge at
Mysore. Subsquently, it was discovered that there was
a shortage of stores materials and in this regard
several memos / office orders were issued to the
defendant and several opportunities were given to the
defendant, but he failed to reconcile the same.
Thereafter, the Departmental Enquiry was ordered to
be held against defendant by the retired District and
Sessions Judge. The enquiry officer by his report
dated 1/6/2002 held that part of the charge made
against defendant is proved. The charge was that
there is shortage of materials worth of Rs.77,705.30.
However, enquiry officer opined that shortage is
Rs.77,705.30 minus value of 66 pipes. This was later
calculated and worked out to be at Rs.52,722.70.
4 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
It is further submitted that, after completion of
all required formalities Managing Director of the
Board by his order dated 26/11/2002 ordered for
recovery of Rs.52,722.70 from the defendant. That
after being transferred from Mysore to Bellary on
30/6/1992, the defendant worked at Bellary Division
of the plaintiff-Board from October 1992 to September
2000. In September 2000, defendant was transferred
back to Mysore. The defendant has worked at Bellary
as a First Division Store Keeper and after handing
over charge at Bellary, it was found that there was
huge shortage of store materials worth more than
Rs. 33 lakhs. Again several notices were issued and
several opportunities were given to the defendant, but
defendant miserably failed to reconcile shortage at
Bellary. Hence it was resolved to hold a Departmental
Enquiry and show cause notice together with article of
charges, list of witnesses and documents were served
on the defendant seeking his explanation. Thereafter,
departmental enquiry was ordered against defendant
5 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
by the Managing Director of the Board dated
27/8/2003. Sri K.M.Mahadevappa was appointed as
Enquiry Report. The Enquiry Officer after enquiry
gave a report on 5/4/2004 holding that the charge
against defendant is proved and that shortage of
Rs.33.30 lakhs is proved.
It is further submitted that second show cause
notice was issued to the defendant on 27/4/2004 as
contemplated by the CCA Rules. That the defendant
once again failed to disprove the charges of shortages.
The defendant was dismissed from the service of
plaintiff-Board vide order of Managing Director dated
21/6/2004. On 28/3/2005, the defendant was
issued a notice asking him to make good loss of
Rs.33,83,310.70 to the plaintiff-Board. The defendant
has not bothered to this notice. However, defendant
preferred an appeal to the Government of Karnataka
challenging the enquiry report and his order of
dismissal. The Government of Karnataka by its order
dated 30/11/2007 dismissed the appeal of the
6 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
defendant. Thereafter too the defendant has not made
good loss caused by him to the plaintiff-Board. The
defendant being the employee of the board is deemed
to be a Government servant. It was his duty to
maintain atmost devotion to the duty. But, on the
contrary has been very callous, casual and lethargic
and reconciled the shortages despite several
opportunities given to him. The defendant has caused
huge loss of morethan Rs.33,83,000/- to the State.
Inspite of notice issued by the plaintiff-Board,
defendant failed to pay the said amount. Hence this
suit.
3. In response to the suit summons issued by
the Court, defendant appeared through his counsel
and filed written statement.
4. In brief the contents of the written
statement filed by the defendant are as under:
The suit of the plaintiff is false and frivolous and
same is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
This defendant has joined the service of plaintiff-
7 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
Board on 7/12/1977 as a Store Clerk and worked as
Store Keeper at Mysore Division till 1992 and was got
relieved at Mysore Division on 30/6/1992 upon
transfer. After transfer, he was directed to proceed to
Bellary by handing over all the records to
Mr.K.L.Thimmappa who was Store Superintendent of
Mysore Division. When defendant relinquished his
charge at Mysore, he had personally verified the
physical task with balance book as on 30/6/1992.
However, Mr.Thimmappa has advised the defendant to
proceed to Bellary Division instantly by pending
physical verification of stores as required to him while
taking charge from the defendant. Subsequently,
physical stocks were verified and charges were drawn
up and signed jointly by the defendant and
Thimmappa to his satisfaction on 3/8/1992. That the
plaintiff has deliberately kept this vital document from
disclosing in the suit or in any proceedings including
departmental enquiry. Defendant certified that on the
basis of jointly signed charge list, the items short due
8 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
to heavy movement was only in respect of 10 items
valued at Rs.28,184.29. Subsequently this defendant
transferred back to Mysore Division from Bellary and
he was asked to report instantly at Mysore by pending
preparation of the charge list. Defendant went to
Mysore after handing over charge of records to
Y.Nagappa, Store Supervisor as directed by the
Divisional Executive Engineer. The physical
verification of stocks were carried out at Bellary on
8/11/2000 and charge list was jointly signed by the
defendant and Mr.Nagappa to his satisfaction on
8/11/2000. That charge list so drawn up and signed
jointly has identified mix up of stocks whereby 39
items were short worth of Rs.56,547.55 and 52 items
were excess worth of Rs.7,24,603.81. The net of which
being value of excess stocks worth of Rs.6,39,871.97.
The compliance statement was duly placed on record.
But plaintiff-board has not responded to the said
compliance statement.
9 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
It is false to suggest that defendant has caused
loss to the Board as contended by the plaintiff. The
actual difference of stocks at both the places came to
be worth Rs.6,11,687.68. The Department has failed
to reconcile the differences as noticed by the
defendant and they kept on harassing the defendant
and finally filed this suit for recovery of amount
claimed in the plaint without any basis.
That the defendant never involved in any short of
misconducts and always diligent and honest to the
best of his ability. The defendant worked at both
Mysore and Bellary divisions and he used to maintain
all the prescribed records in full satisfaction of his
superiors. That the Executive Engineer of Bellary
division used to verify the stores periodically and got
himself satisfied with the work of defendant including
maintenance of physical stocks having no differences
whenever he verified. That the AG office has
conducted audit of the stores every year as required
by statutory provisions and auditors never reported
10 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
any shortage as alleged by the plaintiff board. The
Department initiated enquiries against defendant with
a malafide reasons and enquiry was held in complete
arbitrariness and reports were submitted to suite the
intention of Managing Director. That the defendant
has not caused any loss to the plaintiff-Board and
hence he is not liable to pay any amount as claimed
by the plaintiff-board. On these grounds, defendant
prays for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
my predecessor in office has framed the following
issues for consideration:
(1) Whether plaintiff board proves
that defendant being an
erstwhile employee of it have
caused huge loss of more than
Rs.33.83 lakhs to the
Government during his tenure
as an employee by creating
shortage as alleged in the
plaint?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for suit claim of
Rs.33,83,310.70 ps. From the
defendant?
11 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
(3) What order or decree?
6. In this case, the plaintiff in order to prove
its case examined two witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and
produced in all 33 documents which are marked as
Ex.P1 to Ex.P33 and closed its side of evidence. On
the other hand, defendant examined himself as DW.1
and also got examined one witness as DW.2 and got
marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D20 documents and closed his
side of evidence.
7. Heard the arguments on both sides and
perused entire records of the case. During the course
of argument, the learned counsel for the defendant
filed written arguments.
8. My findings on the above points are as
under:
Point No. 1) ............ In the affirmative;
Point No. 2) ............ In the affirmative;
Point No. 3) ............ As per final order for
the following:
12 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
9. ISSUES NO.1 AND 2: Now I will
consider both the issues together as they are
interconnected with each other and for the sake of
brevity.
10. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant
being an erstwhile employee of plaintiff-board has
caused huge loss of more than Rs.33.83 lakhs to the
Government during his tenure as an employee by
creating shortage. In this case, defendant appeared
through his counsel and filed written statement
denying the case of plaintiff. Defendant admitted that
he was an employee of plaintiff-Board. But he denied
that he has caused loss of more than Rs.33.83 lakhs
to the plaintiff-Board during his tenure as employee
by creating shortage.
11. In this case, the plaintiff-Board in order to
prove its case examined its Registrar as PW.1. He filed
affidavit evidence in lieu of his examination-in-chief.
13 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
In his examination-in-chief, he reiterated the plaint
averments. He produced documents which are
marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P33. In the cross-examination,
he denied that defendant has not caused any loss to
the plaintiff-Board. In this case plaintiff also got
examined one of its employee as PW.2. He filed
affidavit evidence in lieu of his examination-in-chief.
In his examination-in-chief, he supported the case of
plaintiff. He deposed that defendant has caused loss
to the plaintiff-Board while he was an employee of
plaintiff-Board during his tenure. In the cross-
examination, he denied that the defendant has not
caused any loss to the plaintiff-Board.
12. In this case defendant examined himself as
DW.1. He filed affidavit evidence in lieu of his
examination-in-chief. In his examination-in-chief, he
reiterated the contention taken in the written
statement. He produced in all 20 documents which
are marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D20. In the cross-
examination, he admitted that enquiry was conducted
14 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
against him with regard to alleged shortages of stocks.
He also admitted that he has been terminated from
the service.
13. In this case, defendant got examined one
witness who is Executive Engineer, Karnataka Urban
Water Supply and Drainage Board, Mysore as DW.2.
He filed affidavit evidence in lieu of his examination-
in-chief. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that
defendant was worked as a Store Keeper and he
personally know defendant as a man of integrity,
reliability and good manner in his professional
conduct. He further deposed that he never found any
shortage in the stores on any occasion when
defendant was in service. In the cross-examination, he
admitted that there is no need to consult him by the
Department to hold enquiry. He has further stated
that he cannot say about the integrity of defendant.
He admitted that he has no personal knowledge of
shortage in Bellary or Mysore after his transfer.
15 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
14. I have perused entire evidence on record. It
is an admitted fact that defendant joined the service of
plaintiff-Board on 7/12/1977 as a Store Clerk and
worked as Store Keeper at Mysore Division till 1992
and he was got relieved at Mysore Division on
30/6/1992 upon transfer.
15. It is also admitted fact that thereafter
defendant worked at Bellary Division from October
1992 to September 2000 as a Store Keeper. It is the
case of the plaintiff that, after transfer of defendant
from Mysore to Bellary Division, subsequently it was
discovered that there was a shortage of store materials
and in this regard, several memos / office orders were
issued to the defendant and several opportunities
were given to the defendant, but he failed to reconcile
the same.
16. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that
defendant worked at Bellary Division from October
1992 to September 2000 and again in September
2000, defendant transferred back to Mysore and
16 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
defendant has worked at Bellary as a First Division
Store Keeper and after handing over charge at Bellary,
it was found that there was a huge shortage of store
materials worth more than Rs.33 lakhs.
17. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that
thereafter plaintiff-Board issued several notice and
given several opportunities to the defendant to
reconcile the shortages at Bellary but defendant
miserably failed to reconcile the shortage and thereby
defendant has caused damages of more than Rs.33.83
lakhs to the plaintiff-Board.
18. In this case, plaintiff-Board has produced
enquiry report dated 1/6/2000 and another enquiry
report dated 5/4/2004 which are marked as Ex.P2
and Ex.P3. On perusal of Ex.P2, it is much clear that,
plaintiff-Board was ordered to be held departmental
enquiry against defendant by a Retired District and
Sessions Judge Sri S.Anantha Murthy and Enquiry
Officer by his report dated 1/6/2002 held that part of
the charge made against defendant is proved. The
17 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
charge was that there is a shortage of materials worth
of Rs.77,705.30/-. However, enquiry officer opined
that shortage is Rs.77,705.30 minus value of 66
pipes. This was worked out to be at Rs. 52,722.75.
19. Ex.P3 is the another Enquiry Report
conducted against defendant. It shows that one Sri
K.M.Mahadevappa, Advocate was appointed as a
Enquiry Officer and after conducting enquiry, he gave
a report on 5/4/2004 holding that charge against
defendant is proved and that shortage is of Rs.33.30
lakhs is proved. Hence from the evidence on record, it
is much clear that, the plaintiff-Board has conducted
two separate enquiries against the defendant
regarding shortage of store materials and both the
Enquiry Officers have given a report by holding that
defendant has committed misconduct by causing loss
of amount of more than Rs.33.83 lakhs to the
plaintiff-Board.
20. DW.1 in his cross-examination clearly
admitted that enquiry was conducted by one
18 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
S.Anantha Murthy, Retd. District Judge with regard to
alleged shortage of stocks in store at Mysore Division.
He further admitted that he has participated in the
said enquiry. He further admitted that Enquiry Officer
has submitted report on 1/6/2000 and he has not
challenged the said report before any Forum.
21. He further admitted that before the Enquiry
Officer at Bellary Division, he admitted his guilt. He
further admitted that he has not preferred any appeal
on enquiry report. It is pertinent to note that, plaintiff
has conducted two enquiries against defendant for
shortage of store materials. After full-pledged enquiry,
Enquiry Officers have given report to the plaintiff-
Board as per Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively.
Admittedly, plaintiff has not challenged both the
reports before any competent authority. Hence I do
not find any reasons to disbelieve the Enquiry Reports
at Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 produced by the plaintiff.
22. It is also important to note that, defendant
being a responsible employee of plaintiff-Board, even
19 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
he has not contested the second enquiry initiated
against him. On the contrary, he himself admitted the
guilt before Enquiry Officer and thereby he admitted
that he has caused loss to the plaintiff-Board.
Defendant in his re-examination stated that without
any understanding the question before Enquiry Officer
at Bellary Division with regard to the stock, he
admitted guilt, but in the cross-examination, he
stated that from the year 1977 to 2004, he worked
with plaintiff-Board and he is a B.A., graduate in
Economics. He further stated that, he has not stated
anywhere that without understanding the
consequences he admitted the guilt.
23. It is pertinent to note that, defendant is a
B.A., graduate in Economics and he is a responsible
employee of plaintiff-Board. Admittedly he has not
stated anywhere that without understanding the
consequences he admitted the guilt. If really,
defendant admitted the guilty i.e., charges leveled
against him in second enquiry, then he could have
20 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
challenged the said enquiry report before competent
authority stating that without understanding the
question before the Enquiry Officer he admitted the
guilty. Admittedly, defendant has not challenged both
the enquiry reports. It clearly shows that defendant
knowingfully well about the consequences he has
admitted the guilt and charges leveled against him. If
really defendant has not committed any misconduct
or he has not caused any shortage of materials as
contended by the plaintiff-Board, then he could have
challenged the Enquiry Reports i.e., Ex.P2 and Ex.P3
before the competent authority. Admittedly he has not
challenged the said reports. Hence, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3
proves that defendant has caused loss to the plaintiff-
Board for more than Rs.33.83 lakhs during his tenure
as a employee by creating shortage.
24. DW.1 in his cross-examination admitted
that there were 7 reminders issued by Bellary Division
for reconciliation of stock. Further he admitted that he
has not attempted to reconcile the stock. Hence
21 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
evidence of defendant (DW.1) clearly shows that as
many as 7 reminders were issued by the Bellary
Division to the defendant for reconciliation of stock.
Admittedly, defendant has not attempted to reconcile
the stock.
25. It is pertinent to note that, if really
defendant has not caused any loss to the plaintiff-
Board, then he could have attempted to reconcile the
stock, but evidence on record clearly shows that
inspite of several reminders, defendant did not care to
reconcile the stock. Hence this act of the defendant
clearly shows that he has committed loss to the
plaintiff-Board.
26. DW.1 in his cross-examination admitted
that the list produced along with Ex.D9 is not signed.
It is pertinent to note that, admittedly Ex.D9 is not
signed and hence no much importance could be
attached to this Ex.D9. DW.1 also in his cross-
examination admitted that enquiry reports have not
been set aside by any Appellate Authority and he has
22 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
been terminated from the service and he has not
challenged his termination. It is pertinent to note that
Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the Enquiry Reports. Admittedly
they have not set aside by any Appellate Authority.
Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 proves that defendant has caused
loss to the plaintiff-Board to the extent of more than
Rs.33.83 Lakhs.
27. Further, evidence on record clearly shows
that defendant was also terminated from the service
as he has caused loss to the plaintiff-board. In this
case, defendant produced appeal memo which is
marked as Ex.D3. It shows that he had challenged the
order passed by plaintiff-Board before His Excellency
Governor of Karnataka and Appellate Authority.
Ex.D4 is the order passed by the Government. It
shows that the appeal filed by the defendant has been
dismissed. The documents produced by the defendant
itself shows that he has been terminated from the
service and his appeal was dismissed by the
competent authority. Admittedly, defendant has not
23 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
challenged Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 which shows that
defendant has caused huge loss to the plaintiff-Board.
28. In this case, plaintiff-board also examined
one of its employee as PW.2. In his evidence he
deposed that he was working as a Store Keeper at
Mysore from 16/10/1992 to 6/7/2000 and he was
transferred from Mysore to Bellary on 7/7/2000 as a
Store Superintendent. He further deposed that at that
time defendant was Store Keeper at Bellary and he
was transferred to Mysore. He further deposed that he
reported at Bellary in July 2000 and defendant was
relieved on 30/9/2000 but he did not hand over
charge of store materials on that day and handed over
charge of store materials on 8/11/2000 as per
Ex.P12.
29. He further deposed that defendant worked
as store keeper at Bellary from October 1992 to
30/9/2000. He further deposed that defendant had
submitted half yearly returns upto March 1998 and
thereafter he did not submit half years returns and as
24 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
per direction of Executive Engineer, Bellary, he
preferred half yearly returns from September 1998 to
September 2000 and he noticed shortage of materials
worth of Rs.33,30,588/-.
30. He further deposed that defendant failed to
reconcile the shortage inspite of repeated reminders
issued. In the cross-examination, he denied that
defendant has not caused any loss to the plaintiff-
board. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of
PW.2 to disbelieve his evidence. PW.2 is a Retired
Store Superintendent of plaintiff-Board. His evidence
clearly reveals that defendant has handed over charge
of Store materials on 8/11/2000 as per Ex.P12.
31. Further evidence on record clearly shows
that defendant had submitted half yearly returns only
upto March 1998 and thereafter he did not submit
half yearly returns. Further, Ex.P32 clearly shows that
defendant has caused shortage of materials worth of
Rs.33,30,588/-. I do not find any reasons to doubt the
genuineness of Ex.P32. From the oral and
25 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
documentary evidence, it is much clear that,
defendant has caused loss to the plaintiff-Board for
more than Rs.33.83 lakhs while he was in service. The
documents produced by the plaintiff clearly shows
that as per first Enquiry Report defendant has caused
loss of Rs.52,722.70 to the plaintiff and as per second
Enquiry Report, defendant has caused loss more than
Rs.33.30 lakhs. The documents produced by the
plaintiff clearly reveals that defendant has not
maintained proper books of accounts in respect of
store and thereby he caused shortage of store
materials.
32. It is the duty of the defendant to maintain
utmost devotion of duty but on the contrary he has
not maintained proper books pertaining to store
materials and thereby caused loss. Further, inspite of
several reminders defendant has not reconciled the
shortage, thereby defendant has caused huge loss of
more than Rs.33.83 lakhs to the plaintiff-Board.
26 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
33. In this case, defendant got examined
Executive Engineer, Urban Water Supply and
Drainage Board, Mysore as DW.2. In his evidence, he
deposed that he know the defendant personally who is
a man of integrity, reliability and good manners in his
professional conduct. But, DW.2 in his cross-
examination stated that he cannot say the integrity of
the defendant. DW.2 in his examination-in-chief
stated that defendant is a man of integrity, but in the
cross-examination he stated that he cannot say
integrity of defendant. DW.2 also in his cross-
examination stated that he has no personal knowledge
of shortage in Bellary and Mysore after his transfer.
Hence, evidence of DW.2 clearly shows that he has no
personal knowledge about the shortage in Bellary or
Mysore. Further, DW.2 is not definite whether
defendant is a man of integrity or not. DW.2 has
stated two version with regard to integrity of
defendant. Hence evidence of DW.2 cannot be
accepted. Moreover, when defendant himself has
27 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
admitted his guilt in his second Enquiry about alleged
shortage and hence the evidence of DW.2 is not
helpful to the defendant to prove his integrity. The
evidence of DW.2 is not supported by any cogent
material. Hence, from the evidence of DW.2 it cannot
be said that defendant has not caused any loss to the
plaintiff-Board. On the contrary, the documents
produced by the plaintiff clearly establishes that DW.2
has caused loss to the plaintiff-Board.
34. In this case defendant has produced in all
20 documents. I have carefully perused the
documents produced by the defendant. But, in this
case evidence on record clearly shows that defendant
while he was in service at Mysore and Bellary, it was
found that there is a huge shortage of store materials
worth more than Rs.33 lakhs. Further evidence on
record clearly shows that inspite of several
opportunities were given to the defendant, but
defendant miserably failed to reconcile the shortage.
Defendant also in his cross-examination admitted the
28 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
said fact. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 clearly establishes that
defendant has caused loss to the plaintiff-board and
he has failed to disprove the charges of shortages.
35. Further evidence on record clearly shows
that the defendant was dismissed from the service of
plaintiff-Board dated 21/6/2014. Further, evidence
on record clearly shows that thereafter plaintiff-Board
on 28/3/2005 issued the notice to the defendant
asking him to make good loss of Rs.33,83,310.70. It
appears that defendant has not bothered to the said
notice and did not come forward to reconcile the
shortages. It appears that the appeal filed by the
defendant challenging the enquiry report and his
dismissal order came to be dismissed. Thereafter also
defendant has not made good loss caused by him to
the plaintiff-Board. Hence, on perusal of the entire
oral and documentary evidence, it is much clear that,
defendant being an employee of plaintiff-Board has
caused huge loss of morethan Rs.33.83 lakhs to the
29 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
plaintiff-Board during his tenure as a employee by
creating shortage.
36. In this case, advocate for the defendant
filed written arguments. In his written arguments, he
contended about maintainability of the suit, cause of
action, pecuniary jurisdiction and territorial
jurisdiction. It is pertinent to note that, defendant has
not taken these contentions in his written statement.
The plaintiff has filed this suit against defendants for
recovery of the money. The suit filed by the plaintiff-
Board is perfectly maintainable. The evidence on
record clearly shows that defendant has challenged
the Enquiry Reports and his dismissal order before
Government of Karnataka by filing appeal. The
Government of Karnataka by its order dated
30/11/2007 dismissed the appeal of the defendant.
Thereafter, plaintiff got issued legal notice calling
upon the defendant to pay the loss caused to the
plaintiff-Board, but defendant failed to pay the said
amount caused by him. Then plaintiff-Board filed this
30 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
suit in the year 2008. Hence, there is a cause of action
arose to the plaintiff-Board to file this suit and suit of
the plaintiff is well within time. Hence, I do not find
any force in the argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the defendant. Both the enquiries took
place against defendant at Bangalore. Plaintiff-Board
is also situated at Bangalore. The cause of action also
arose at Bangalore. Hence, this court has territorial
and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit. The rulings
relied upon by the advocate for defendant are not
applicable to the facts of this case. The plaintiff is a
statutory Board established by Government of
Karnataka under the provisions of Karnataka Urban
Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1973. This suit
is filed by the Managing Director of the plaintiff-
Board. Hence suit filed by the Managing Director of
the plaintiff-Board is maintainable for recovery of the
amount from the defendant who has caused loss to
the plaintiff-Board.
31 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
37. The documents produced by the plaintiff-
Board clearly establishes that defendant has caused
loss of more than Rs.33.83 lakhs to the plaintiff-Board
during his tenure as an employee by creating
shortage. Therefore, plaintiff-Board is entitled for suit
claim of Rs.33.83 lakhs from the defendant.
38. In this case, plaintiff has sought for current
and future interest at the rate of 15% per annum from
the date of suit till realization. Looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact
that defendant has already been dismissed from the
service, it is just and proper to award current and
future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the
suit claim amount. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to
recover a sum of Rs.33,83,310.70 together with
interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the
defendant from the date of suit till the date of
realization. Plaintiff-board proved issues 1 and 2.
Accordingly, I answer issues 1 and 2 in the
affirmative.
32 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
39. ISSUE NO.3: From my above discussions
and reasoning, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be
decreed in part. In the result, I pass the following:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
decreed in part with costs.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover a
sum of Rs.33,83,310.70 together
with interest thereon at the rate of
6% per annum from the defendant
from the date of suit till the date of
realization of the entire decreetal
amount.
Draw decree accordingly.
***
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 18th day of August 2016.] [S.H. HOSAGOUDAR] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
33 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 K.L.Thimmappa
PW.2 Y.Nagappa
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW.1 A.J.Shankar
DW.2 H.Honnegowda
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P 1 Authorisation Ex.P 2 Enquiry report dated 1/6/2002 Ex.P 3 Enquiry report dated 5/4/2004 Ex.P 4 Copy of proceedings of the Managing Director Ex.P 5 Show cause notice dated 4/2/2003 Ex.P 6 Articles of charges Ex.P 7 Appointment order of Enquiry Officer Ex.P 8 Show cause notice dated 27/4/2004 Ex.P 9 Proceedings of the Managing Director Ex.P 10 Second show -cause notice dated 28/3/2005 34 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_ Ex.P 11 Copy of proceedings of the Government of Karnataka Ex.P 12 Charge sheet Ex.P 13 Returns of stock Ex.P 14 To 7 passbooks Ex.P 20 Ex.P 21 To Invoice books Ex.P 25 Ex.P 26 Stock receive register Ex.P 27 Stock issue register Ex.P 28 To 4 half yearly statements (Bellary Ex.P 31 division) Ex.P 32 List of shortages Ex.P 33 Calculation list of shortage
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D1 Statement of Bellary and Mysore in and respect of charge list Ex.D2 Ex.D3 Copy of appeal to the Managing Director 3/1/2008 Ex.D4 Copy of the order dated 30/11/2007 Ex.D5 Copy of the letter dated 28/7/2007 Ex.D6 Copy of the appeal to the Secretary dated 3/1/2008 Ex.D7 Copy of the order passed by the Secretary dated 15/10/2009 35 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_ Ex.D8 Copy of the representation dated 12/7/2006 Ex.D9 Certified copy of the appeal filed by the Managing Director dated 3/1/2008 Ex.D10 Certified copy of the order dated 30/11/2007 Ex.D11 Copy of the letter dated 28/7/2007 Ex.D12 Copy of the appeal submitted to the Secretary dated 2/1/2008 Ex.D13 Copy of the representation dated 12/7/2006 Ex.D14 Copy of the letter dated 24/9/2001 Ex.D15 Copy of the representation dated 17/12/2002 to HUD Ex.D16 Copy of the letter dated 26/11/2002 Ex.D17 Copy of the orders dated 1/4/2005 Ex.D18 Copy of the Government order dated 10/3/2005 Ex.D19 Copy of the letter dated 8/9/2003 protesting M.Ds orders Ex.D20 Copy of the representation dated 28/9/2002 [S.H. HOSAGOUDAR] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, BANGALORE.
36 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_ ...Judgment pronounced in the Open Court....
(Vide separate detailed judgment) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in part with costs.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.33,83,310.70 together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the defendant from the date of suit till the date of realization of the entire decreetal amount.
Draw decree accordingly.
[S.H.HOSAGOUDAR] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
39 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_ 40 CT0028_O.S._1359_2008_Judgment_ fdfdf