STATE OF U.P. Vs. PADAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri P.P. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel on admission of appeal. No one appears on behalf of respondents. This second appeal has been preferred by defendant/State of U.P. whereby suit for recovery of money filed by respondent-plaintiff had been decreed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties shall be described as they were referred before the Trial Court, i.e., as plaintiff/defendant unless specified otherwise.

(3.) Randhir Singh (plaintiff No. 3) was a collection Amin. Padam Singh (plaintiff No. 1) and Sukhveer Singh (plaintiff No. 2) stood surety for Randhir Singh for Rs. 10,000/- that in the event of any embezzlement by Randhir Singh, they would indemnify the loss. While Randhir Singh was in service, he allegedly committed embezzlement of Rs. 3731.95 pursuant to which a case under sections 409 and 218, I.P.C. was registered on 8.4.1980, a second report was lodged on 23.7.1980 for Rs. 2824.18 under sections 409 and 417, I.P.C. Randhir Singh was also proceeded departmentally which culminated in his termination on 15.1.1982. A claim petition was preferred before the Public Service Tribunal which was dismissed on 16.12.1996. However, plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 deposited an amount of Rs. 6156.13 with the department on 30.1.1982. Although Randhir Singh was convicted by the Trial Court but in Appeal No. 165 of 1994 and 8 of 1990, he was acquitted for the offences charged on 6.9.1984 and 18.5.1990 respectively. These orders of acquittal attained finality. Subsequent to his acquittal he staked his claim for refund of the forfeited amount of Rs. 6156.13. Further defendants also issued an illegal recovery against the plaintiff Randhir Singh for Rs. 2406.24, which was forcibly got deposited. As the aforesaid amount was not refunded, plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 2406.24 respectively.