PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP. LTD. versus SIKANDER SINGH

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 694 · Decided: 24-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
PUNJAB STA TE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP. LTD. 
v. 
SIKANDER SINGH 
FEBRUARY 24, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Service law---Torts--Damages---Civil Suit for damages for the goods 
lost due to negligence of employee-lvlaintainability of-Shortages of wheat 
C due to lack of proper supervision on the part of respondents working as 
Inspector and Field Officer/Supervisor- Departmental proceedings initiated 
and they were dismissed from service-Appellate authority directed 
reinstatement of respondent 1 who was the actual holder of the stock and 
against whom there were findings of misappropriation subject to his depositing 
bags of wheat, found to be short--He complied with the said direction and 
D was reinstated without backwages---No finding of misappropriation of goods 
by respondent 2---Appellant filed a civil suit against respondents for recovery 
of damages for the goods lost--Held, the civil suit for damages for breach of 
contract, or for tortious act is not maintainable against respondent I for the 
self-same cause of action for which penalty has already been paid by him in 
E departmental proceedings-,')uch a suit is not maintainable against respondent 
2 as he was not found to have misappropriated goods-Mere negligence in 
performance of duty resulting in loss of goods is not enough. 
Service law---Torts·--Contract of Employment-Indian Contract Act 
I872-Section 73-Civil suit in tort for damages by employer against 
F employee-Held, a suit for damages by way of tortious claim is maintainable 
only when one has a duty to perform towards another-A suit for damages is 
maintainable only on ground of breach of the terms and conditions of the 
contract resulting in damages and when there are acts of malfeasance, 
misfeasance and nonfeasance. 
G 
Torts-Negligence-Misconduct-Negligence in performance of duty 
H 
under contract of employment resulting in loss of goods of employer-Held, 
negligence simpliciter may or may not amo~nt to misconduct-Negligence iri 
the performance of duty under a contract of employment may give rise to a 
disciplinary proceeding in which recovery of money from the delinquent can 
694 
·• 
. ' 
't 
-' 
' 
·~ 
PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP. v. SIKANDER SINGH 
695 
be directed by way of punishment-Such loss of goods would not give rise to A 
r 
a cause of action under torts for recovery of money for the goods lost due to 
. negligence in performance of duty. 
Dismissal from service-Appeal Against-Code of Civil Procedure 
1908-Section I OD-Respondent 2 filed a suit challenging the order imposing 
punishment of removal from service-Suit and the first appeal dismissed-The B 
High Court allowed the second appeal on the premise that the dereliction of 
duty vis-a-vis supervisory control was not attrib'utable to him-Held, the High 
Court could not have set aside the concurrent findings of two courts without 
formulating a substantial question of law. 
Respondents 1 and 2 were the employees of the appellant working C 
as inspector and field officer/ supervisor. On physical verification of stocks, 
shortages of 4513 bags of wheat were said to have been noticed. It was 
alleged that whereas respondent 1 was the actual holder of the stock, 
respondent 2 was negligent in making proper supervision of the god owns 
which resulted in shortages of wheat. Departmental proceedings were D 
initiated against both of them any they were dismissed from service. In 
departmental proceedings negligence of respondent 1 had been held to 
\ 
have contributed to the loss of 2/3rd of the shortages. The appellate 
authority directed his reinstatement subject to his depositing the requisite 
number of bags of wheat. He complied with the said direction and was 
later reinstated without backwages. 
E, 
Respondent 2 filed a suit before the High Court against the order of 
dismissal passed against him. The suit as also the first appeal w~re 
dismissed. However, the High Court allowing the second appeal held that 
order of dismissal is not sustainable as dereliction of duty vis-a-vis F 
supervising control was not attributable to him. Appellant was in appeal 
1 
before the Supreme Court thereagainst. 
The appellant filed a civil suit against the respondents 1 and 2 for 
recovery of the price of the quantity of wheat which had been found to be 
short alleging that shortage of wheat took place due to their negligence. G 
The said civil suit was dismissed as against respondent 2 whereas the same 
was allowed as aga

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.