Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

As regard the suit arising out of departmental proceeding against the defendant no. 2, which was the subject matter of the Second Appeal, the High Court held:

"However, the appeal filed by Sikander Singh has been dismissed as has been dismissed from service only on account of dereliction of duty of supervisory control. However, the admitted case is that the control of stocks was that of defendant No. 1 and not that of defendant No.

2. Since I have concluded that dereliction of duty vis-`- vis supervisory control is not attributable to defendant No. 2, as such the order of dismissal passed against defendant No. 2 is not sustainable."

It was directed:

"In view of the above discussions, RFA No. 1780 of 1997 filed by PUNSUP fails and is hereby dismissed and the RFA No. 347 of 1997 filed by Shri Tilak Raj defendant No. 1 is allowed and the suit filed by PUNSUP is dismissed. RSA No. 2232 of 1998 filed by Sikander Singh is also allowed in view of the fact that it has been held that dereliction of duty vis-`-vis supervisory control is not attributable to defendant No. 2  appellant in RSA No. 2232 of 1998."

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant would submit that although the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were the employees of the Appellant, a civil suit was maintainable against them for recovery of money as shortage of wheat took place due to their negligence. So far as, defendant No. 2 is concerned, it was submitted that although he had no direct role to play but in view of his acts of non-feasance, he will be liable therefor as he had a duty to supervise the godowns.