Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bhim Sen Datta vs Of on 4 October, 2016
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 567 of 2007 .
Judgment reserved on 27.09.2016 Date of Decision: 04. 10.2016 _____________________________________________________________________ Bhim Sen Datta ....Appellant-Defendant.
Versus of Himachal Gramin Bank ... Respondents-Plaintiffs Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
rt Whether approved for reporting?1 yes For the Appellant: Mr. Dheeraj Vashisht, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Basant Thakur, Advocate.
Sandeep Sharma, Judge Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 20 of Himachal Pradesh Court Act, 1976 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.8.2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra in Civil Appeal No. 148/P/05/04, affirming the judgment and decree Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP
...2...
dated 26.11.2003, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), .
Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 58/1999, whereby suit of the plaintiff was decreed for recovery of Rs.1,73,245/-
alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
of
2. Briefly stated facts as emerged from the record are that plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.1,73,245/- alongwith rt interest @ Rs. 18% per annum quarterly rests w.e.f. 17.7.1998 till the full and final payment of the aforesaid amount against the appellant (hereinafter referred to the 'Defendant') in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. Plaintiff specifically stated in the plaint that plaintiff Bank is having a functional branch at Baijnath under the name and style of 'Himachal Gramin Bank, Baijnath' (hereinafter referred to as 'HGB'). Plaintiff further averred that defendant was posted as Cashier in its Branch Office at Baijnath and had been serving under the control of various Branch Managers, who remained posted there. Plaintiff further averred that on 10.7.1992, Shri R.P. Gupta, was the Branch Manager of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...3...
Plaintiff-Bank at Branch Office, Baijnath, whereas defendant was .
cashier at that relevant time. It is further averred in the plaint that at the end of the business transaction on 9.7.1992, the then Manager, R.P. Gupta, demanded the entire cash from defendant for physical verification. The Cashier presented the cash, which of was counted in the presence of other employees and was tallied with the daily cash balance book prepared by the defendant-
rt Cashier but to the utter surprise a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- was found short and that too in the denomination of Rs.50/-
currency notes. Plaintiff further averred that defendant stated that he has kept the amount in the lower drawer of the currency safe and informed the Manager that he had lost the key of the drawer and on this pretext he kept on making false search.
Defendant further told the Manager that he might have left the key at his residence inadvertently. Accordingly, cash produced was kept in safe which was locked by the Manager and the defendant. On the next day when defendant failed to produce the keys matter was reported to the Head Office by the then Manager, R.P. Gupta, pursuant to which General Manager of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...4...
Bank came from Mandi at 4:00 p.m. and the duplicate keys .
which were kept in safe custody of the Punjab National Bank, Branch Office, Paprola was taken out and with the aforesaid key lower drawer was opened but no money was found in it.
Accordingly matter was reported to the police and thereafter on of 10.7.1992 defendant was put under suspension and regular inquiry was initiated on 7.9.1993. Defendant filed civil writ rt petition before High Court of Himachal Pradesh and inquiry was got stayed till 30.11.1994 when the writ was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court. The regular inquiry conducted by Bank was completed on 26.9.1997 and inquiry officer submitted his report on 16.4.1998 holding all the charges proved against the defendant. Personal hearing was also granted to the defendant by the Chairman of the Bank on 20.6.1998. As per plaintiff Bank, defendant orally admitted his guilt and offered to compensate the Bank by paying the sum of Rs.1,55,000/- by way of deduction from his salary, however, his request was turned down and he was removed from the service. Thereafter, plaintiff Bank asked defendant several time to pay the embezzled ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...5...
amount but no heed was paid by the defendant and petitioner .
bank was compelled to get legal notice issued upon him on 17.9.1998. Since, defendant failed to deposit the amount despite there being legal notice, plaintiff filed suit in the competent Court of law for recovery of Rs.1,73,245/- alongwith interest of @18% per annum quarterly rests w.e.f. 17.7.1998 till the full and final payment of the aforesaid amount.
3. rt Defendant by way of written statement refuted the contentions/averments contained in the plaint in toto by stating that since plaintiff failed to supply the documents to defend him in inquiry, he filed writ petition, whereby, conditional stay order was passed to the plaintiff to supply the documents. Defendant further submitted that no charge was proved against him and the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and natural justice. He further submitted that personal hearing was given though there was no admission on behalf of the defendant and accordingly he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings available on record, framed following issues on 9.1.2002:-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP...6...
"1. Whether the defendant in capacity of the employee of the plaintiff bank was entrusted .
sum of Rs. 1,55,000/-, which he did not account for, for the plaintiff bank, as alleged? OPP
2. Whether sum of Rs.1,73,245/- is due from the defendant to the plaintiff alongwith interest, as alleged? OPP of
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
4. Whether the suit is not within time? OPD. rt
5. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD
6. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this Suit? OPD
7. Relief."
5. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,73,245/- with interest, as has been described hereinabove.
6. Defendant being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2003 passed by learned trial Court below filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code in the Court of learned Additional District & ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...7...
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, .
praying therein for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2003 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palampur.
However, fact remains that learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, dismissed the appeal of and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
7. rt In the aforesaid background, present appellant-
defendant filed instant Regular Second Appeal, praying therein for quashing and setting aside of judgments passed by both the Courts below, whereby the suit for recovery filed on behalf of plaintiff was decreed.
8. This Court vide order dated 24.3.2008 admitted the appeal on the substantial questions of Law No. 1 and 3, which are reproduced as under:-
"1. Whether the findings of the learned First Appellate Court and the learned trial Court are a result of complete misreading of pleadings, evidence and the law as applicable to the facts of the case and particularly document Exts. D1 and Dx and as such palpably erroneous and illegal and if so to what effect?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP
...8...
3. What is the starting point of limitation for recovery suit when an FIR for alleged embezzlement .
was lodged on 10.7.1992 and department charge sheet on identical allegations as contained in the FIR was served upon the appellant.
9. Mr. Dheeraj Vashisht, counsel representing the appellant-defendant vehemently argued that the impugned of judgments passed by both the Court below are not sustainable as the same were not based upon correct appreciation of the rt evidence available on record and, as such, same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Vashisht vehemently argued that bare perusal of impugned judgment and decreed dated 8.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kangra at Dharamshala, is contrary to law and facts and, therefore, requires to be set aside. He further argued that learned Courts below have fallen in grave error and acted with material illegality and irregularity in deciding issue Nos. 1 to 6 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Mr. Vashisht further stated that while deciding the said issues in favour of respondent-plaintiff, learned Courts below have completely misread and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...9...
misconstrued the evidence and law as applicable to the facts .
and circumstances of the case, as a result of which, great prejudice has been caused to the present appellant-defendant.
Mr. Dheeraj Vashisht, with a view to substantiate his aforesaid arguments invited the attention of this Court to the issues of framed by learned trial Court to demonstrate that learned Court below have fallen in grave error while deciding issue Nos. 1 to 6 rt against the appellant by drawing far fetched assumptions, presumptions and inferences which were neither warranted by the evidence on the case file nor by law, as a result of which, unwarranted inferences and conclusions drawn by both the Courts below while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Mr. Vashisht further contended that perusal of pleadings clearly suggests that learned trial Court erred in not framing proper issues, which has also vitiated the trial findings. Learned counsel representing the appellant-defendant further stated that Court below while deciding issue Nos. 1 to 6 against the appellant has fallen in grave error because it failed to appreciate the evidence on record that FIR in the case was registered on 10.7.1992 and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...10...
appellant was charge-sheeted on 3.3.1993 in departmental .
inquiry and was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 30.6.2003 in criminal case. He further submitted that it was nowhere proved on record that appellant was entrusted with a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/-, which was embezzled by appellant-
of defendant. He stated that it is an admitted fact that said amount was in safe cash, which could be opened with two keys, one of rt which was with the Manager, R.P. Gupta and other key was with the appellant-defendant. Since key with the appellant-defendant was misplaced and therefore, there was no possibility of removal of money by the appellant-defendant as the duplicate key was with the Punjab National Bank, Paprola. Hence, learned Courts below have wrongly came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- was embezzled by appellant-defendant. Mr. Vashisht forcibly contended that perusal of charge sheet clearly suggests that defendant in connivance with Mr. R.P. Gupta, the then Manager, had embezzled the amount in question, but the learned Courts below only held present appellant-defendant responsible for embezzlement of aforesaid amount of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...11...
Rs.1,55,000/-. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Vashisht .
forcefully contended that Courts below committed material illegalities and irregularities while concluding that suit of plaintiff-respondent was within time.
10. As per Mr. Vashisht, learned Courts below wrongly of applied Article 3 of the Limitation Act to the facts of the case, which ultimately resulted into complete miscarriage of justice rt and palpably illegal and erroneous findings on the point of limitation. He stated that both the Courts below erred in placing reliance on inadmissible evidence resulting into miscarriage of justice to the appellant. He further stated that close scrutiny of the entire evidence and appraisal of the law applicable to the facts of the case would go to show that the findings of the Courts below are arbitrary, harsh, unjust, unlawful and oppressive, and the same are liable to be set aside. In view of the aforesaid background, Mr. Vashisht prayed for acceptance of the appeal after setting aside the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP...12...
11. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate, duly .
assisted by Mr. Basant Thakur, Advocate, supported the judgments passed by both the Courts below. Mr. Sharma, while referring to the judgments of both the Courts below forcefully contended that bare perusal of the same suggests that same of are based upon the correct appreciation of evidence available on record and it calls for no interference, whatsoever, of this rt Court. Mr. Sharma further stated that close scrutiny of judgment itself suggests that learned First Appellate Court while rejecting the appeal preferred by present appellant has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously, as such, this Court has no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by both the Courts below. While refuting the submissions having been made on behalf of appellant-defendant, Mr. Sharma strenuously argued that it stands duly proved on record that defendant embezzled the amount of Rs.1,55,000/- and for this illegal act, he was punished by the Bank by removing him from the service after conducting disciplinary proceedings. Mr. Sharma also stated ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...13...
that inquiry was conducted in most fair manner after .
associating the appellant-defendant and he was afforded opportunity of being heard, which stands duly proved on record. He further informed that appellant had laid challenge to disciplinary action taken against him by the plaintiff-respondent of by way of filing writ petition before the Court which was dismissed. While refuting the contention put-forth on behalf of rt appellant-defendant that the suit was time barred, Mr. Sharma strenuously argued that inquiry was completed on 26.9.1997 and thereafter inquiry report was submitted on 16.4.1998, meaning thereby, responsibility was fixed on the defendant in the year, 1997 and thereafter defendant was removed from service on 20.6.1998. Mr. Sharma also submitted that perusal of plaint would clearly show that demand notice was served on 17.7.1998, meaning thereby, suit was well within the Limitation, if limitation is counted from 26.9.1997 when inquiry was completed. Mr. Sharma further stated that at no point of time, the then Manager, R.P. Gupta was held responsible by the inquiry officer for embezzlement of amount, rather inquiry ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...14...
officer concluded that the then Manager was negligent in .
performing his duties, accordingly disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and penalty in accordance with law was also imposed upon him. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Sharma Prayed for dismissal of appeal.
of
12. Mr. Sharma further contended that this Court has very limited power to re-appreciate the evidence, especially, rt when both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings on the facts as well as law. In this regard, to substantiate the aforesaid plea, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others Vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015)4 SCC 264.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
14. This Court would be taking up substantial question of law No. 1 for consideration.
15. Close scrutiny of pleadings as well as submissions made by learned counsel representing the parties, it emerges that defendant was serving as a Cashier in one of the Branch of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...15...
plaintiff Bank at Baijnath. Since, he was Cashier, he use to hold .
cash as per procedure of the bank and the amount was being paid and received on counter by him. On 9.7.1992, the then Manager, R.P. Gupta asked defendant to produce cash alongwith record pertaining to it, but fact remains that on checking, it was of found that an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- was not in cash safe, whereas, as per balance cash book, it ought to have been with rt the defendant. Since, there was deficiency of amount, matter was reported to the police and FIR was registered and appellant was put under suspension on 10.7.1992 and regular inquiry initiated on 7.9.1993. However, fact remains that defendant filed civil writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and got the stayed the proceeding of inquiry till 30.11.1994. The regular inquiry was completed on 26.9.1997 and report was submitted on 16.4.1998 by the inquiry officer. Inquiry Officer found appellant-defendant guilty of charges framed against him and accordingly plaintiff bank afforded opportunity of personal hearing to the defendant on 20.6.1998, wherein, he while admitting his guilt, offered to compensate the Bank by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...16...
paying the sum of Rs.1,55,000/- in installment to be deducted .
from his salary. Plaintiff Bank removed the defendant from service on 20.6.1998. Thereafter, since defendant failed to return embezzled amount, plaintiff bank was compelled to file suit for recovery, as has been discussed hereinabove.
of
16. In view of the above, this Court solely with a view to explore the answer to substantial question of law framed at the rt time of admission, as reproduced hereinabove, perused the entire evidence adduced on record by the respective parties.
17. Perusal of Ext. D1 adduced on record by defendant i.e. inquiry report submitted by Shri I. K. Arora, Senior Manager and I.D. Sharma, Manager, clearly suggests that appellant-
defendant embezzled an amount of Rs.1,55,000/-, as a result of which, plaintiff-bank suffered loss of Rs. 1,55,000/-. No doubt, in the aforesaid inquiry report Ex.D1, Manager was found to be guilty of lack of supervision and for that act of Manager, Shri R.P. Gupta, penalty stands imposed upon him as was informed by the counsel representing the plaintiff-bank. It also emerges from the record that departmental proceedings were initiated ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...17...
against Shri R.P. Gupta, Manager, wherein, it was never found .
that amount was misappropriated by him. There is no doubt that in Ext.D1, i.e. enquiry report, enquiry officer came to the conclusion that Shri R.P. Singh, Manager, miserably failed to perform the duties as Manager and custodian, which resulted of cash loss of Rs.1,55,000/- to the bank. But, admittedly careful perusal of Ext. D1 i.e. inspection note nowhere suggests that Shri R.P. Gupta, rt Manager was ever held responsible for embezzlement of Rs.1,55,000/-, which was admittedly embezzled by the appellant-defendant. Apart from above, Shri R.P. Gupta, the then Manager stands departmentally penalized. Similarly, perusal of Ex. DX suggests that criminal case was registered against the defendant and he vide judgment dated 30.6.2003 was acquitted from the charges framed against him after extending benefit of doubt. It is settled law that acquittal in the criminal case will not exonerate the civil liability of the defendant. In the present case, as clearly emerge from the record, present appellant-defendant was found guilty of embezzlement in departmental proceedings and accordingly ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...18...
he was removed from service and as such, this Court sees no .
illegality and infirmity in the findings return by both the Courts below where they came to the conclusion that Civil proceedings and Criminal proceedings are separate and independent in the nature and finding in the criminal case is irrelevant while of deciding the civil matter.
18. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the rt judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. vs. S.Samuthiram, 2013(3) SLR 554, (S.C.); wherein Court held as under:-
17. This Court, in Southern Railway Officers' [[ Association v. Union of India (2009) 9 SCC 24, held that acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
The Court reiterated that order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent officer had been acquitted of the criminal charge.
18. In State Bank of Hyderabad v. P.Kata Rao (2008) 15 SCC 657, this Court held that there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the jurisdiction of the superior Courts in interfering with the finding of fact arrived at by the Enquiring Officer is limited and that the High Court would also ordinarily not interfere with the quantum of punishment and there cannot be any doubt or dispute that only because the delinquent employee ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...19...
who was also facing a criminal charge stands acquitted, the same, by itself, would not debar the disciplinary authority in initiating a fresh .
departmental proceeding and/or where the departmental proceedings had already been initiated, to continue therewith. In that judgment, this Court further held as follows:
"The legal principle enunciated to the effect that on the same set of facts the delinquent shall not be proceeded in a departmental proceedings and in a of criminal case simultaneously, has, however, been deviated from. The dicta of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another [(1999) 3 SCC 679], however, remains unshaken although the applicability thereof had rt been found to be dependant on the fact situation obtaining in each case."
19. In a later judgment of this Court in Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Raod Transport Corporation v. M. G., Vittal Rao (2012) 1 SCC 442, this Court after a detailed survey of various judgments rendered by this Court on the issue with regard to the effect of criminal proceedings on the departmental enquiry, held that the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be held to be disproportionate or non-commensurate to the delinquency.
20. We are of the view that the mere acquittal of an employee by a criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Department. The respondent, it may be noted, is a member of a disciplined force and non examination of two key witnesses before the criminal court that is Adiyodi and Peter, in our view, was a serious flaw in the conduct of the criminal case by the Prosecution. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility of winning order P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the criminal case cannot be ruled out. We fail to see, why the Prosecution had not examined Head Constables ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...20...
1368 Adiyodi and 1079 Peter of Tenkasi Police Station. It was these two Head Constables who took the respondent from the scene of occurrence .
along with P.Ws. 1 and 2, husband and wife, to the Tenkasi Police Station and it is in their presence that the complaint was registered. In fact, the criminal court has also opined that the signature of PW 1 (husband - complainant) is found in Ex.P1 - Complaint. Further, the Doctor P.W.8 has also clearly stated before the Enquiry Officer that the respondent was under the influence of liquor and of that he had refused to undergo blood and urine tests. That being the factual situation, we are of the view that the respondent was not honourably acquitted by the criminal court, but only due to the fact that PW 1 and PW 2 turned hostile and other rt prosecution witnesses were not examined.
19. Hence, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court sees no force in the contention put-forth on behalf of the counsel representing the appellant-defendant that both the Courts below have misread the pleadings, evidence and law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially, Ext. D1 and DX. Hence, the substantial question is answered accordingly.
20. Now this Court shall be adverting to substantial question No. 3. It clearly emerges from the record that on 10.7.1992, plaintiff-bank lodged FIR against the appellant-
defendant and he was put under suspension on the same day.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP...21...
Thereafter regular inquiry was initiated on 7.9.1993, but .
appellant-defendant filed writ petition on the ground that no documents have been supplied to him, as a result of which, Hon'be High Court of Himachal Pradesh vide order dated 30.11.1994 stayed the inquiry and later on Hon' ble High Court of of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the writ petition. It is also undisputed that regular inquiry was completed on 26.9.1997 and rt inquiry office submitted its report on 16.4.1998, whereby, he held appellant-defendant guilty of charges framed against him.
Thereafter, defendant filed representation with the Chairman of the Bank, who gave him personal hearing on 20.6.1998 where he offered to compensate the Bank by paying the sum of Rs.1,55,000/- by way of deduction from his salary in monthly installment. But fact remains that appellant-defendant was removed from service on 20.6.1998 itself, meaning thereby, cause of action, if any accrued to plaintiff to recover embezzled amount started from the day appellant-defendant was removed from service pursuant to inquiry report dated 16.4.1998. Plaintiff filed present suit for recovery on 8.3.1999, which was well within ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...22...
limitation in terms of Article 3 of Limitation Act which provides .
as under:-
Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run
3. By a principal against Three years. When the account is, his agent for movable during the continuance of property received by the the agency, demanded latter and not accounted and refused or, where no of for. such demand is made, when the agency terminates.
rt
21. Even if limitation is counted from the day when inquiry was completed i.e. 26.9.1997, even then suit is well within limitation as prescribed under Article 3 of the Limitation Act.
Hence, this Court sees no force much less substantial force in the contention put-forth on behalf of appellant-defendant that Courts below erred in concluding that suit was well within limitation. Careful perusal of sequence of event leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that suit filed by plaintiff was well within time and the same was rightly entertained by Courts below. There cannot be any dispute that period of limitation, if any, would not start from the day of lodging of FIR against ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...23...
delinquent official, rather same would commence from the day .
when delinquent officer was removed from service pursuant to report of inquiry officer. In the present case, as clearly emerge from the record, inquiry was completed on 26.9.1997 but defendant was removed from service on 20.6.1998 and, as such, of by no stretch of imagination, it can be concluded that limitation in the instant case would run from the date of lodging of FIR i.e. rt when plaintiff-Bank filed FIR against defendant stating therein that he embezzled an amount of Rs.1,55,000/-. In the instant case though inquiry officer submitted his report on 26.9.1997, but admittedly appellant-defendant was removed from service on 20.6.1998, meaning thereby, suit filed by the plaintiff was well within limitation in terms of Article 3 of Limitation Act, as such, there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by both the Courts below, hence, substantial question of law is answered accordingly.
22. This Court sees no illegality and infirmity, if any, in the judgments passed by the Courts below, rather, same are based upon correct appreciation of the evidence available on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...24...
record. This Court is fully satisfied that both the Courts below .
have critically examined the issue involved in the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter. Since, both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings, which otherwise appear to be based upon proper of appreciation of evidence, this Court has very limited jurisdiction/scope to interfere in the matter. In this regard, it rt would be apt to reproduce the relevant contents of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015)4 SCC 264, herein below:-
"16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below has recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs have established their right in 'A' schedule property. In the light of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re- appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the 'A' schedule property for road and that she could not have full fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to plaintiffs' right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP ...25...
not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and .
documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained."
23. Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the judgments passed of by both the Courts below are based on correct appreciation of the evidence, be it ocular or documentary on the record and, as rt such, present appeal fails and same is accordingly dismissed.
Interim directions, if any, are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma )
October 4, 2016 Judge
(sanjeev)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:21:02 :::HCHP