JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Defendant No.2, the Presiding Officer of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur Civil and Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, is in second appeal before this Court. 2. Facts in brief giving rise to file the present appeal, in a nutshell, are that one Ravi Kant son of respondent No.1 Jitwar Singh Negi (since dead) and respondent No.2 Smt. Dolma, (hereinafter to be referred to as =the plaintiffs'), was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.HP02-4716, on 24th July, 1995. The vehicle met with an accident near Sanarsa (Jhakari) and said Shri Ravi Kant died in the said accident. 3. The plaintiffs filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Rampur Bushahr. Appellant herein, defendant No.2 passed an award and awarded a sum of Rs.1,78,000/- as compensation together with interest to the plaintiffs. The insurer, National Insurance Company subsequently deposited the awarded amount before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The awarded amount was partly ordered to be released to the plaintiffs, however, a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- was ordered to be invested in Kisan Vikas Patras. 4. Defendant No.3, who was holding the post of Daftri in the office of appellantdefendant No.2 and looking after the work of Naib Nazir under the authority of defendant No.2, had withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- from State Bank of India, Rampur on 22nd May, 1998. Defendant No.3, however, did not invest the amount in question in the postoffice in the form of Kisan Vikas Patra. This fact came to notice on 19th April, 2004, when the plaintiffs filed an application for release of the amount so invested in Kisan Vikas Patra. The matter was brought to the notice of the High Court. On the direction of the High Court, a criminal case came to be registered against defendant No.3. He was tried by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr and convicted. 5. In a Civil Writ Petition filed by the plaintiffs seeking the relief of recovery of the amount in question, the High Court ordered to initiate disciplinary proceedings against defendant No.3. Liberty was also reserved in favour of the plaintiffs to seek appropriate remedy available to them in accordance with law. 5. In a Civil Writ Petition filed by the plaintiffs seeking the relief of recovery of the amount in question, the High Court ordered to initiate disciplinary proceedings against defendant No.3. Liberty was also reserved in favour of the plaintiffs to seek appropriate remedy available to them in accordance with law. This has led in filing Civil Suit No.75-1 of 2009 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rampur, District Shimla, for the recovery of Rs.3,57,500/- against the defendants jointly and severally. 6. Learned trial Court has decreed the suit vide judgment dated 1st May, 2009, for the recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum against defendant No.3 alone. Defendants No.1 and 2 were not held liable to pay the decretal amount with the following observations: ?Further-more, it is expressly made clear that since defendants No.1 and 2 have no active role in the present suit. More-so-over, it is no where pleaded from the side of plaintiffs that defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiffs. It is expressly admitted by PW-1 as well as DW-1 that Government of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary Home or learned MACT Tribunal is not involved in the present suit. It is proved to the satisfaction of this Court rather from the Criminal Court that has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC. He had misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- after embezzling a sum being government servant, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is the defendant No.3 who is himself liable and responsible to re-pay the suit amount to the plaintiffs. As a sequent effect, issue No.1 is answered affirmative in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.? 7. The plaintiffs aggrieved by that part of the judgment and decree whereby defendants No.1 and 2 were exempted from liability to pay the decretal amount, have preferred Civil Appeal No.1-AR/13 of 2009/10 in District Courts at Rampur Bushahr, which came to be decided by learned Additional District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur vide judgment and decree dated 30th April, 2011, under challenge in the present appeal. Learned lower appellate Court while reversing findings on issue No.1 to the extent of defendants No.1 and 2 discharged from the liability, has held that defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount and has partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the extent that the suit stands decreed against defendants No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. 8. Defendants No.1 and 3 have not preferred any appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court. The judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court qua them have thus attained finality. 9. It is, however, defendant No.2, who has assailed the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court in the present appeal on the grounds inter alia that, learned lower appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record in its right perspective and to the contrary based its findings on the surmises and conjectures. It is defendant No.3, who allegedly was liable to pay the decretal amount because this amount was entrusted to him with a direction to purchase the Kisan Vikas Patra. He, however, failed to do so and to the contrary embezzled the amount in question. He was convicted for the offence so committed. It is contended that the appellant was not supposed to accompany defendant No.3 to post-office for deposit of the amount in question and to purchase Kisan Vikas Patra. 10. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the learned lower appellate court has erred by ignoring the finding rendered as Ex.PW-1/J whereby the respondent No.5 was convicted on account of misappropriation of Rs.1,25,000/-? 2. Whether the learned lower appellate Court has been wrong in applying the principle of Master and Servant under the given facts and circumstances of the present case? 11. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has argued that no liability could have been fastened upon appellant-defendant No.2, as according to Mr. Verma, appellant defendant No.2 has no role to play in embezzlement of the amount in question. It is rather defendant No.3, who is liable to pay the decretal amount. Learned trial Court has rightly saddled him with the said liability and the findings so recorded could have not been quashed by learned lower appellate Court. 12. On the other hand, Mr. It is rather defendant No.3, who is liable to pay the decretal amount. Learned trial Court has rightly saddled him with the said liability and the findings so recorded could have not been quashed by learned lower appellate Court. 12. On the other hand, Mr. V.D. Khidtta, learned Counsel representing the respondents-plaintiffs, has urged that learned lower Court has rightly held all the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount in view of there being Master-Servant relationship in existence. Similar are the arguments on behalf of defendant No.3. 13. The questions of law need adjudication are that in view of the conviction of defendant No.3, he alone is liable to satisfy the decree and that Master-Servant relationship has nothing to do in this case and as such appellant should have not been saddled with liability. 14. Keeping in view questions so raised in this appeal, elaboration of the facts and evidence available on record is not required, as it is only the legal questions, having been raised, need to be redressed. 15. Section 79 of the code of Civil Procedure deals with the suits by or against the Government or public Officer in connection with any act done in their official capacity. Law on the issue is no more res-integra, as the Apex Court in such cases of omission of employees has held the Master, i.e., the State liable. Reference can be made to a judgment of the Apex Court in Chairman, Railway Board and others v. Chandrima Dass and others, AIR 2000 SC 988 . In this case some railway employees subjected a woman to sexual intercourse in Yatri Niwas at railway-station. The Apex Court, while holding that the employees, who were deputed to manage the establishment including the railway-station and Yatri Niwas, were essential components of the government machinery. Carrying commercial activity, if any, such employee committed an act of tort the Union Government of which they are employees on satisfaction of other legal requirement can be held vicariously liable for damages to the persons wronged. 16. Carrying commercial activity, if any, such employee committed an act of tort the Union Government of which they are employees on satisfaction of other legal requirement can be held vicariously liable for damages to the persons wronged. 16. In Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1996 SC 2377 , a case where the staff of Government Medical Hospital while operating upon a patient left mop in the body of the patient resulting in formation of pus and ultimately death of the patient, held the State liable by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 17. In Saheli, a Women?s Resources Centre through Ms. Nalini Bhanot and others v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others, AIR 1990 SC 513 , where a nine years old child died on account of beatings given by the police officer, the State was held liable for tortuous acts of its employees, i.e., police officer and to pay the compensation to the dependents of the child. 18. Applying the above principles in the present case, defendant No.3 was an employee of defendants No.1 and 2. He was entrusted a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to deposit the same in post-office and purchase the Kisan Vikas Patra in the names of the plaintiffs. He neither deposited the amount in the post-office nor purchased the Kisan Vikas Patra and rather embezzled the amount in question. In a criminal case he has been held guilty and convicted under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 14th May, 2007, Ext.PW-1/J. Defendants No.1 and 2 being the Masters of defendant No.3 have, therefore, been rightly held jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount. Learned lower appellate Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality or irregularity while decreeing the suit against all the defendants. Defendants No.1 and 2, if so advised, may recover the amount in question from defendant No.3 in accordance with law. 19. In view of above, no legal questions muchless to speak of substantial questions of law as formulated, arise for determination in the present appeal. The judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court is legally and factually sustainable and as such deserves to be upheld. 20. For all the reasons hereinabove, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.