Shn K V Snnivas v. He directed the authorities to recover the said amounts from

the plaintiffs, while handing over the charge of the Stores there was shortage of store materials like hume pipes, steel, cement, etc. and the misappropriation of the said material was assessed at Rs.8,47,326.60 ps. The appellant was asked to make good the loss. It is alleged that inspite 3 of several requests and demands the appellant did not pay the amount and therefore, the plaintiffs approached the Clvii Court praying for decreeing the suit for Rs. 6,85,106.60 ps together with interest.

According to the plaintiffs, a departmental inquiry against the defendant came to be conducted after Issuing several notices demanding him to set-right the things and later on the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dharwad, after giving sufficient opportunity to the defendant-appellant proceeded with the inquiry and ultimately held that the delinquent official was guilty of the charges leveled against him and that he has misappropriated the store materials to the e?ctent of Rs.8,47,326.60 ps. He directed the authorities to recover the said amounts from the appellant- delinquent.

The order passed by the Inquiry Officer was intimated to the defendant calling upon him to make good the loss caused to the department and inspite of that the defendant reimburse amount 4 Government. Therefore, the Department approached the Civil Court by filing the present suit.

As against this, the defendant appeared and contested the mater before the trial Court, admitting that he was in-charge of the Stores till 1995 when he was transferred to PWD, Gadag. According to him, at no point of time he mismanaged or misappropriated the articles In the Stores as alleged and he has maintained all records properly entering the stocks as and when it was received or given. According to the appellant-defendant, he has never misappropriated any of the materials In the Stores. He alleged that, till date the department has not given the list of details of the articles said to have been misappropriated. According to him, the cement was directly sent to the place of work by the supplier and the question of misapproprlating cement would not arise. He totally denied the entire claim and contended that even if he was due any amount to the department, according to him, the claim of the plaintiffs is barred by time. According to him, In the absence of furnishing him the /5 5 details of the so-called artides said to have been misappropriated, they have no right to lay such claim against him and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit.

Based on the above pleadings, the following issues came to be framed:

Whether the plaIntiff proves that defendant has misappropriated Rs.8,47,320.60 Ps while he was working as a Store Keeper during the period from 1992 to 1995? store materials worth

Whether the plaIntiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.8,47,320.60 ps. with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit, from the defendant?

3. What order or decree? AddI. Issue No.1: Whether the suit Is barred by limitation? Addl. Issue No.2: Whether defendant is entitled for refund of Rs.1,62,220/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum as a counter daim?

Before the trial Court, the plaintiffs examined PW.1 Assistant Executive Engineer got marked 27 documents Exs.P.1 to P.27. The appellant-defendant 75 ‘1 6 examined himself as DW.1 and got marked one document Ex.D1, a list prepared by the defendant before the Enquiry Officer.

Regarding Issue No.1, PW.1 — the Assistant Executive Engineer says, between 3.10.1988 to 2.6.1995 the appellant was working as Junior Engineer under him and he was In-charge of the Stores from September 1991 to June 1995. He further says, the duty of defendant was to maintain proper stock of the materials like PVC pipes, hume pipes, HP sets, electrical spares, cement, steel and other articles. According to him, the defendant was liabie to pay the loss to the Government in case any shortage arises. He further says, at the time of relieving him on transfer, it was defendant misappropriated stores materials as mentioned in the separate statement annexed to the plaint to the extent of Rs..8,47,326.60 ps and therefore, he was asked to make good the loss to the Government. When repeated requests and reminders to make good the loss did not work on the defendant-appeiiant, he requested the Chief Executive ‘5 1 Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Dharwad, to take appropriate action against the said defendant by furnishing details of charges leveled against the defendant. Following the report, charge sheet came to be filed against defendant. The Chief Executive Engineer, PWD, Dharwad, informed the matter to his higher ups to hold an Inquiry against the defendant. The Executive Engineer, PWD, Dharwad was directed to conduct the inquiry against the defendant and submit a report.

At the time of inquiry proceedings, when the appellant-defendant was called upon by the Inquiry Officer appear before him to explain alleged misappropriatIon, he did not appear and the inquiry was conducted ex-parte. On the basis of relevant documents and evidence of the concerned offidais, an order came to be passed holding that the defendant during his tenure has misappropriated the store materials to an extent of Rs.8,47,326.60 ps and by his order dated

4.11.1999 directed the department to recover the said S amount from the appellant defendant and other benefits received by the defendant from the Government. 10 In the cross examination the Assistant Fxecutiv€ Enczineer PW 1 admits he was deposing based on the records available in the department He refers to different correspondence iddressed to his hIgher ups Intimating and addressing a opy of wh ch to the defendant indicating the amountc due towards the misappropriated articles One of such correspondence is dated 15 11 1995 at F-x.P 6 This was addressed to the Executive Engineer PWD, Gadag from the Iilla Panchayat Haven A copy of the same was addressed to 1 K V S inivas the presert appellant, t approa I’ rcc ed ftckiac e ct x i .i I. t 9 Zilla Panchayat Engineering Division, Haven, asking them to send the entire details of the list of shortage articles round whiI handing over charge

Before the tnal Court the Department produced the statement rhowing the list of artides which were found short at the time of elieving the appellant on his transfer to Gadag and also the departmental Inquiry papers The trial Court found that apparently the appellant did not appear before the Inquiry Officer to defend himself even after sufficient opportunity was given and ultimately the Inquiry Officer proceeded witi thc. inquiry placing the appellant °x parte Ultimately the inquiry was conduded I c. pe iant guilty a id ccp r ibic. t iateil ot 8 s ‘3 t 10 F nquiry Officer Itis not in dispute, that the authorities were aware of the shortage of the store materials when the appellant was relieved from Ranebennur office on his transfer to Gadag in 1995 A’ a matter of fact they were also aware of the cost of these missing articles or shortage articles When the plaintiffs approached the trial Court seeking a decree for Rs.84l 326 60 ps they ought to have established their claim placing all the relevant matenals before the Court No doubt, the Inquiry Officer, who is an in house officer of the department has held that there is misappropriation of the stores articles by the appellanttc thetrnecrRc83 ?O6Orc ca ed ver me* d ocate ai y admts c 1 f 3 C pt C d[ g 0 a C. 11 conclusion that there is misappropriation of the articles amounting to Rs8,47326.60 ps

When the plaintiffs approached the tnal Court seeking for a decree against the defendant and in the light of the defendant protesting the claim of the plaintiffs before the trial Court, is expected on the part of the plaintiffs to establish their claim with all the necessary material on record. In the present case, except the correspondence between various Officers Department at different places and the Enquiry Report, they did not even bother to examine the successor-in office of the appellant who discovered thc shortage of the 3rticlc. he Store he act or part cipatio of the or. a ‘ c.par e. r r a a ot by là • f t has delib a / 0 f’crr and th fore the c,ulry YILa 1jt • ‘ouid be binding oOl i it Or ‘F’’ n Inc i irier trj ,, j., tar J.3 — tF’ ,.,,I .‘irt ., .c’t •r, r€1’ • — . 1i ...(‘ff ‘j-.rC, ..y 1P1 responsible record misappropriation committed by the defendant ie as to how the msppropriation has happened on what basis they have oncluded that there is misappropriation and what exactly were the articles that were found missing, when such articles were supplied to the stores When such articles were found missing from the stores whether the stock regist€r indicated the availability of such material and who assessed the list of shortage of articles and so also the assessment of the cost of the missing articles or shortage articles Unless the department was able to place n record all these details we cannot opine that plaintiff wa attempting t discharge th€. burden f proving conclusion.