Punjab State and Others vs K.K. Sharma

Swatanter Kumar, J.—The challenge in this appeal by the State of Punjab is to the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court dated.3.5.1990, vide which, while accepting the appeal, the learned Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dated 4.8.1988.

The State had imposed a penalty of recovery of Rs. 17,592/- to be recovered from one Mr. K.K. Sharma for non-compliance of the instructions in the delivery of wheat stocks to the F.C.I. Mr. K.K. Sharma was working as Inspector, Goods and Supplies Circle, Bhatinda, in the office of Director of Food and Supplies. Admittedly, show cause notice was issued to the delinquent official who did not file reply. Before the trial Court, he had taken up the plea that the alleged instructions, Exhibit P-7, had not been brought to the notice of Mr. K.K. Sharma and as such, he was not liable to suffer any penalty.

The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, mainly on its findings based on evidence with regard to issue No. 1. Issue No. 3 to 5 were decided in favour of the plaintiff.

The learned first Appellate Court specifically found that there was no violation of principles of natural justice, but decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that instructions dated 3.6.1982 and 16.6.1992 were not brought to the notice of the plaintiff.

DW-2 (Bikker Singh) was examined on behalf of the State, who specifically stated that these instructions were brought not only to the notice of the plaintiff, but also to the notice of all concerned, not only in the day-to-day business of meeting, but specifically in the meetings held on 27.5.1982 and 3.6.1982. The learned first Appellate Court has certainly erred in disbelieving the official witness, specially when reference was made to the meeting of the office and the instructions were duly produced on record as Exhibit P-7. The presumption is always in favour of the things happening in their natural and lawful course. The learned Additional District Judge has given no reason as to why the plaintiff, who just examined himself as PW-1 must be believed over the official-witness who produced the records in support of his statement.

Another factor which has to be kept in mind is whether a person working in the department in the normal course of business has to have the knowledge of the matters governing his day-to-day functioning. It has been specifically brought to my notice by the learned State Counsel that the normal function of Mr. Sharma is to deal with the dispatch of food grains to the F.C.I. and he has to be familiar with the instructions from competent Authority from day to day. The trial Court has rightly given weightage to the fact that in spite of having received the Show Cause Notice, the plaintiff opted not to submit any reply before the Authorities concerned.

In view of the discussions above, I find that the judgment of the learned first Appellate Court is based upon wrong premises and the Court has erred in not appreciating the evidence before it in consonance with the settled principles of Law.

As such, this appeal is accepted. The judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court is set aside, while that of the trial Court is affirmed. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.