Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1420 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Padam Singh

2014-05-01

PANKAJ NAQVI

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi,J.: - Heard Shri P.P.Chaudhary, learned standing counsel on admission of appeal. No one appears on behalf of respondents. 2. This second appeal has been preferred by defendant/state of U.P. whereby suit for recovery of money filed by respondent plaintiff had been decreed. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be described as they were referred before the trial court i.e. as plaintiff/defendant, unless specified otherwise. 4. Randhir Singh (Plaintiff no.3) was a collection amin. Padam Singh (plaintiff no.1) and Sukhveer Singh (plaintiff no.2) stood surety for Randhir Singh for Rs.10,000/- that in the event of any embezzlement by Randhir Singh, they would indemnify the loss. While Randhir Singh was in service, he allegedly committed embezzlement of Rs.3731.95 pursuant to which a case under Section 409 and 218 I.P.C was registered on 8.4.1980, a second report was lodged on 23.7.1980 for Rs.2824.18 under Section 409 and 417 I.P.C. Randhir Singh was also proceeded departmentally which culminated in his termination on 15.1.1982. A claim petition was preferred before the Public Service Tribunal which was dismissed on 16.12.1996. However, plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 deposited an amount of Rs.6156.13 with the department on 30.1.1982. Although Randhir Singh was convicted by the trial court but in Appeal no.165 of 1994 and 8 of 1990, he was acquitted for the offences charged on 6.9.1984 and 18.5.1990 respectively. These orders of acquittal attained finality. Subsequent to his acquittal he staked his claim for refund of the forfeited amount of Rs.6156.13. Further defendants also issued an illegal recovery against the plaintiff Randhir Singh for Rs.2406.24, which was forcibly got deposited. As the aforesaid amount was not refunded, plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2406.24 respectively. 5. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that suit was not preceded by any notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and that plaintiff Randhir Singh had executed forged receipts of Rs.9932.30 and had embezzled the said amount and that his services were lawfully terminated. It was also alleged that on account of dismissal of claim petition preferred by plaintiff respondent no.3 challenging his termination before the Public Services Tribunal, no relief could be granted in the present suit. 6. It was also alleged that on account of dismissal of claim petition preferred by plaintiff respondent no.3 challenging his termination before the Public Services Tribunal, no relief could be granted in the present suit. 6. It was urged that once services of plaintiff-respondent no.3 were terminated on 15.1.1982, and a claim petition dismissed by Public Services Tribunal on 16.12.1996, it was not open for the courts below to decree the claim for Rs.2406.24 which was alleged to have been deposited by plaintiff respondent no.3 with the appellants. 7. Proceedings were initiated by Tehsildar on the basis of report (Exb. Ka-1) for alleged embezzlement of Rs.3731.95 for which F.I.R. was registered on 8.4.1980. The said report also refers to yet another embezzlement committed by plaintiff respondent no.3 for Rs.2824.18. The appellate court held that it was not evident from (Exb. Ka-1) as to how and in what manner embezzlement was committed, in as much as names of farmers who were alleged to have paid the said amount, was not disclosed. D.W.1 Om Prakash could not disclose the names of farmers. The appellate court held that there was no justification for appellants to have got depositted Rs.2404.24. The dismissal of the claim petition filed by plaintiff respondent no.3 before the Public Services Tribunal also could not have impacted the present proceedings as the issue involved in the present proceedings was as to whether amount of Rs.10,000/- and that of Rs.2404.24 was illegally deposited/forfeited or not. The courts below held that because of lack of evidence as reflected from Exb. Ka-1, plaintiff respondent no.3 was entitled for Rs.2404.24. This is a finding of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence to which no perversity could be demonstrated. Termination of plaintiff respondent no.3 was not an issue in the present proceedings. Thus in the considered opinion of this court dismissal of the claim petition would have had no bearing on the fate of these proceedings which had to be decided independently. 8. The judgment is concluded by findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage with costs.