Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State Of Punjab And Another vs Smt. Baljit Kaur And Others on 20 September, 2012
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
RSA No. 3305 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 3305 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: September 20, 2012
The State of Punjab and another
...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Baljit Kaur and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab,
for the appellants.
A.N. JINDAL, J. (Oral)
The present appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, dated 14.3.2012, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 21.1.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar.
The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiffs/appellants had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 18,55,749.85 from the legal heirs of late Tarlok Singh for the financial loss caused by him to the Government. The suit was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the State of Punjab also met the same fate, hence the present appeal.
The documentary evidence brought on record by both the parties reveal that there was allegation against Tarlok Singh that on account of negligence on his part, stock of wheat was damaged. However, there is nothing on record as to how much stock was entrusted to Tarlok Singh and how much was decayed, which was necessary to prove the exact loss RSA No. 3305 of 2012 2 suffered by the plaintiffs/appellants. Order with regard to compulsory retirement of Tarlok Singh was challenged in civil court through civil suit No. 154 of 1996 and said order was set aside by the court of Mrs. M.K. Bedi, the then Civil Judge, Nakodar, vide her judgment dated 29.11.1999 in a suit titled as Tarlok Singh Dhillon Vs. The Punjab state and others. One Kartar Singh was also held responsible for decay of the stock and was compulsorily retired. Order with regard to compulsory retirement of said Kartar Singh was also set aside by the Court of Sh. G.K. Rai, the then learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 117 of 16.7.1998, decided on 7.4.2001, titled as Kartar Singh Vs. The Punjab State, copy of which is Ex. D3.
On over all analysis of the matter shows that if evidence of plaintiffs/appellants is accepted as a whole, Tarlok Singh alongwith his companions were at the most negligent in performance of their duty and the loss as alleged for the fault on their part is not proved.
In view of the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the courts below, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal.
No merits. Dismissed.
September 20, 2012 (A.N. JINDAL) prem JUDGE