JUDGMENT Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.:- Defendant is in Regular Second Appeal against thejudgments and decrees passed by the Courts below wherebysuit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court andaffirmed by the lower Appellate Court. 2. Brief facts are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for recoveryof Rs.1,16,547/- against the defendant on account of shortageof empty gunny bags and loss of interest due to late receipt ofpayment of wheat crop from Food Corporation of India (for short’the FCI’). Defendant/appellant was posted as Incharge ofTalwandi Bhai Punsup Centre and he was directed to purchaseand store wheat for the crop year 1997-98. One Piare LalInspector Grade II was posted as Addl. Incharge of the Centrefor double lock of the stocks of wheat for the crop year 1997-98along with the defendant. On 18.04.1997, Jagdev Singh wasposted as Addl. Incharge in place of Piare Lal. Defendant andthe said Jagdev Singh joined Talwandi Bhai Centre on25.04.1997 and both of them purchased and stored the wheatstock for the crop year 1997-98. Defendant was to deliver thewheat stock to FCI as per directions of the higher authorities. Defendant was also required to maintain the health of the stockwith the use of insecticides, fumigants, wooden crate, polythenecovers and other stock articles. He was also required tomaintain the stock register and godown register and registersfor entering the quantity, delivery, opening balance and closingbalance etc. 3. It was further alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendantalong with Jagdev Singh purchased 1,75,013 bags of wheatweighing 1,66,130.70 Qtls. of wheat for the crop year 1997-98and made delivery to the FCI. Jagdev Singh was transferred toFatehgarh Panchtoor vide order dated 21.06.1998. Defendantwas directed to relieve him immediately so as to enable him tojoin his new place of posting on 01.07.1998. However,defendant did not relieve him in time. Jagdev Singh was relievedvide letter dated 12.01.1999 and at the time of his relieving, nocharge was due from him. Defendant had mentioned that nocharge was due from Jagdev Singh and he was not responsiblefor wheat specials dated 17.11.1998, 25.11.1998 and delivery of6/97, 11/97 and 1/98 as there was no shortage and excess asper the norms. The wheat stock purchased by the defendanthad become Nil in 8/2000. Defendant had mentioned that nocharge was due from Jagdev Singh and he was not responsiblefor wheat specials dated 17.11.1998, 25.11.1998 and delivery of6/97, 11/97 and 1/98 as there was no shortage and excess asper the norms. The wheat stock purchased by the defendanthad become Nil in 8/2000. The accusation against thedefendant/appellant was that the wheat special dated11.07.1997 was placed on 12.07.1997, but the defendant couldnot load the wheat special and the FCI deducted a sum ofRs.28,008/- and also forfeited the security payment of Punsup.A letter dated 22.07.1997 was issued to the defendant to showcause as to why wheat special was lapsed and why hisresponsibility be not fixed for the said loss. Defendantsubmitted his reply on 22.07.1997. The explanation was notfound to be satisfactory and it was held that the defendant wasresponsible for the loss of Rs.28,008/- to the plaintiffs. Thesecond accusation was in the context that empty gunny bagsprovided to the defendant being incharge of the Centre werefound short in the physical verification conducted. Estimatedvalue of the shortage was Rs.63,018/-. 4. Defendant/appellant denied the allegations andpleaded that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the necessaryparties. Relieving of Jagdev Singh and also execution of writingin respect of the same was denied. The document was claimedto be forged and it was alleged that the plaintiffs should havetaken the matter with the FCI and the FCI was not entitled todeduct any amount, unilaterally without conducting any inquiryor fixing responsibility. The defendant/appellant being asubordinate officer was made a scapegoat. He never refused todeliver the stock, but in fact FCI persons did not take thedelivery of the wheat and the defendant had given theexplanation in the reply dated 22.07.1997. Supply of quantity ofgunny bags or bales was also denied including any shortage asalleged by the plaintiff. The defendant relied upon the inquiryreport dated 01.10.1999 in which defendant was never found atfault and it was Gurnam Singh, Inspector G-II, who was found atfault, but he was not impleaded in the suit. 5. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence led by theparties held that so far as recovery of amount of Rs.28,008/- onaccount of demurrage and forfeiture of security was concerned,the same was the joint liability of the defendant and JagdevSingh Inspector, who also joined the Talwandi Bhai PunsupCentre on 25.04.1997. The wheat special dated 11.07.1997 wasplaced on 12.07.1997. 5. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence led by theparties held that so far as recovery of amount of Rs.28,008/- onaccount of demurrage and forfeiture of security was concerned,the same was the joint liability of the defendant and JagdevSingh Inspector, who also joined the Talwandi Bhai PunsupCentre on 25.04.1997. The wheat special dated 11.07.1997 wasplaced on 12.07.1997. Defendant being incharge was requiredto deliver the stock on 12.07.1997, but he could not load thewheat special. Due to non-delivery, Railways chargeddemurrage from the FCI and FCI in turn deducted an amount of Rs.28,008/- on account of demurrage and security forfeiturefrom the bill of the plaintiffs. The defendant admitted the factthat he could not load the wheat on 12.07.1997, but attributedthe same to the officials of the FCI, who did not take the deliveryof the stock intentionally. 6. It was held by the trial Court that if the officials of theFCI did not take the delivery of the stock intentionally, thedefendant should have informed the plaintiffs. It was only on22.07.1997, the defendant ventilated his grievance when hewas issued a show cause notice. The unwillingness of theofficials of the FCI could have been informed by the defendantin time. It was only when the FCI had written a letter dated17.07.1997 with regard to the forfeiture of security, stand of thedefendant could be known. Prior to that the defendant neverbrought it to the notice of the plaintiffs. Since no information wasgiven prior to 22.07.1997, the defendant was found liable for thesaid lapse. The trial Court further held that no doubt thedefendant was found to be negligent in performing his duty,however he was not the sole person, responsible for the same.Jagdev Singh examined by the plaintiffs as PW-6 was also liablefor the negligence, who was posted at the same time from23.04.1997 to 30.06.1998, when the wheat stocks werepurchased. 7. The trial Court also doubted the alleged reliving letter.By referring to the document Ex.DW-5/C, the trial Court foundsome alterations by way of addition of words with regard towheat special mentioned in the letter. The author of thedocument did not sign at the end of the writing. The signaturesof the author of the document i.e. the defendant were not legibleand a line was inserted over the signatures. The document wasfound to be doubtful and the genuineness of the same was notrelied by the trial Court. The author of thedocument did not sign at the end of the writing. The signaturesof the author of the document i.e. the defendant were not legibleand a line was inserted over the signatures. The document wasfound to be doubtful and the genuineness of the same was notrelied by the trial Court. Jagdev Singh while appearing as PW-6admitted that he remained working at Talwandi Bhai Centrefrom 23.04.1997 to 30.06.1998. Trial Court held Jagdev Singhalso responsible for the admitted loss on account of demurrageand forfeiture of security, which was deducted from the bills ofthe plaintiffs. So from the total computation of Rs.28,008/-, halfof the amount i.e. Rs.14,004/- was ordered to be recovered fromthe defendant. 8. The second allegation with regard to shortage of ninegunny bales was proved by the plaintiff-Corporation before thetrial Court on the basis of physical verification dated 30.09.1999(Ex.PC). At the time of physical verification, the stock was foundto be in custody of the defendant, who was also present at thespot and verified the same. Joint liability of Gurnam Singh wasdiscarded by the trial Court on the ground that the defendantcould not prove the fact by way of any report in his favour withregard to the physical verification dated 30.09.1999. Preciselyfor the said reason, the trial Court held the defendant liable forthe loss amounting to Rs.63,018/-. 9. I have heard the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the parties. 10. So far as the amount of Rs.28,018/- on account ofdemurrage and security forfeiture is concerned, the liability ofthe defendant was held to be 50% i.e. Rs.14,004/-, which in myconsidered opinion cannot be faulted with, as the same wasrecorded on the basis of evidence on record. The defendant didnot inform the plaintiffs timely in respect of unwillingness of theofficials of the FCI in not accepting the delivery of stock. 11. With regard to second allegation, the defendant hadspecifically taken the plea of joint liability with Gurnam Singh,Inspector G-II. Reliance was placed on enquiry report dated01.10.1999 (Ex.DW-1/D) submitted by Chaman Lal, FieldOfficer, Punsup, Zeera, pursuant to his appointment as enquiryofficer vide letter dated 29.07.1999 (Ex.DW-1/C). In the reportdated 01.10.1999, involvement of Gurnam Singh, Inspector G-II,was also found in respect of accusation against thedefendant/appellant. Reliance was placed on enquiry report dated01.10.1999 (Ex.DW-1/D) submitted by Chaman Lal, FieldOfficer, Punsup, Zeera, pursuant to his appointment as enquiryofficer vide letter dated 29.07.1999 (Ex.DW-1/C). In the reportdated 01.10.1999, involvement of Gurnam Singh, Inspector G-II,was also found in respect of accusation against thedefendant/appellant. Though the defendant has taken a standthat enquiry report dated 01.10.1999 did not involve him, butextracted translation of concluding two paras of the saiddocument would show the following facts:- “xxx xxx xxx I have read the statements of all the employeesand also orally heard them and reached to this conclusionthat if brother of Sh. Bhajan Singh was ill, in any case, heshould have counted the Bardana to Sh. Gurnam Singh andsecondly if Gurnam Singh was to use the Bardana then heought to have counted the same, so that shortage, if anycould have been known at that time. Both employees admitthat they have double lock with them. No adjustment in theaccount of Sh. Madanjit Singh has been proved. From theside of Gurnam Singh a list has been prepared on the basisof record, from which it is proved that he has yet to take 502gunny bags from the Mandi after adjustment of giving andtaking. From this list, no importance (ahmiat) can be givento the adjustment of 1080 gunny bags in the account ofBhajan Singh, as after adjusting this Bardana in theaccount of Arthiyas the balance of Mandi has been takenout. So conclusion is that Sh. Gurnam Singh shouldtake 502 gunny bags from Mandi and remaining shortage of9 Gatha = 2700 gunny bags (-) 505 = 2198 gunny bags isattributed to both of them equally. (not readable)................” Sd/- Field Officer, Punsup Zeera” 12. Perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees wouldshow that the trial Court has not adverted to the aforesaiddocument (i.e. enquiry report dated 01.10.1999 (Ex.DW-1/D) inany manner. The trial Court has based its conclusion only onthe physical verification of gunny bags which was done on30.09.1999. The document Ex.DW-1/C vide which the EnquiryOfficer was appointed and the report dated 01.10.1999(Ex.DW-1/D) submitted by the Enquiry Officer should havebeen taken into consideration by the trial Court while decidingthe second accusation against the defendant/appellant. 13. As per the enquiry report dated 01.10.1999(Ex.DW-1/D) submitted by Chaman Lal, Field Officer, Punsup,Zeera, for the shortage of nine gunny bales, Gurnam Singh wasalso held equally responsible along with the defendant. 14. 13. As per the enquiry report dated 01.10.1999(Ex.DW-1/D) submitted by Chaman Lal, Field Officer, Punsup,Zeera, for the shortage of nine gunny bales, Gurnam Singh wasalso held equally responsible along with the defendant. 14. So far as plea of the plaintiff in respect of maintainabilityand limitation is concerned, the suit was filed through authorisedperson and from the date of physical verification dated30.09.1999, the cause of action arose to the plaintiffs in the year2000. The wheat special was to be loaded out of the stockswhich became Nil in August 2000 and, therefore, the suit waswithin limitation. 15. Since the appellant was not solely responsible for theshortage of nine gunny bales worth Rs.63,018/-, therefore,Gurnam Singh ought to have been impleaded as co-defendant.The loss should have been apportioned amongst the defendantand Gurnam Singh, who was also found to be indicted by in thereport dated 01.10.1999 (Ex.DW-1/D). Non-consideration of thesaid report by the Courts below can be credited to the case ofthe defendant/appellant, by reducing his liability to the tune of50% under the said allegation. 16. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I accept theappeal partially by modifying the decrees passed by the Courtsbelow thereby, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for recovery ofRs.14,004/- (half of Rs.28,008/-) and Rs.31,509/- (half ofRs.63,018/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the dateof filing of the suit till passing of the decree by the trial Court i.e.17.07.2013 along with future interest @ 6% per annum from thedate of decree till final realization of the amount.