Mohinder Pal, J. - (1.) BALBIR Chand Taxali (Plaintiff-Appellant) is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration challenging orders dated 28.2.1984 and 24.4.1984 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Karnal, P.W.D., Public Health Branch and the Accountant General, Haryana respectively was dismissed.
(2.) I have heard Ms. Ranjeeta Gill, Advocate, appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Rajiv Kwatra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the Respondents and have perused the impugned judgments. The Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 28.2.1984 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief and the order dated 24.4.1984 passed by the Accountant General, Haryana were illegal, void, against the rule of natural justice, ultra vires to the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that after the retirement of the Plaintiff there was no relationship of master and servant and the recovery of Rs. 17,467.95 from his death-cum-retirement gratuity was not tenable.
(3.) THE trial Court out of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as six issues but the main issue whether the order dated 28.2.1984 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Karnal PWD Public Health Branch, by which a sum of Rs. 17,467.95 recovered from the Plaintiff from DCRG etc. read with order dated 24.4.1984 passed by the Accountant General, Haryana were illegal, void and against the rules of natural justice was decided against the Plaintiff. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record held that the Plaintiff did not care about the utilization of material being issued to the contractor. It was also not clear that the material was required for the bona fide requirements of the works in process. As this was a material lapse on the part of the Plaintiff in discharging his official duties, the Plaintiff issued material to the contractor in excess of the bona fide requirements. He was given due opportunities to defend himself. During the course of inquiry he admitted his contributory negligence. He was heard before initiation of action against him. Finding no lacuna in the departmental inquiry, it was held that no interference is required in the orders dated 28.2.1984 passed by the Engineer -in -Chief, Karnal, P.W.D. and the order dated 24.4.1984 passed by the Accountant General, Haryana and dismissed the suit filed by the Plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the Plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court.;