Case Note & Summary
The respondent, Arvind Ramrao Chakole, was an engineer employed by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation. He was entrusted with a Pentex Automatic Level with stand and levelling staff for field duty. On 27 March 1999, after completing measurements, he stored the instruments in a contractor's godown instead of returning them to headquarters, which was 15 km away. That night, a fire destroyed the godown and the instruments. The corporation passed an order on 17 November 2000 directing recovery of the value of the instruments from the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the order was illegal and for permanent injunction restraining recovery. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal. The corporation filed a second appeal. The High Court framed the issue of whether the plaintiff was liable for the loss. The court noted that the instruments were entrusted to the plaintiff, and he failed to prove that the loss was not due to his negligence. The court held that the plaintiff did not take reasonable care and that the order of recovery was valid. The second appeal was allowed, the judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Government Servant Liability - Loss of Government Property - Entrustment - The plaintiff, an engineer, was entrusted with survey instruments which were destroyed in a fire while stored in a contractor's godown. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the loss was not due to his negligence or that he took reasonable care. The order of recovery was upheld. (Paras 3-10) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Negligence - In a suit for declaration and injunction against recovery for loss of government property, the burden lies on the plaintiff to show that the loss occurred without his negligence. The plaintiff did not discharge this burden. (Paras 8-10) C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Declaration - A suit for declaration that an order of recovery is illegal is not maintainable when the plaintiff has not shown any legal right or that the order is contrary to law. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff-employee is liable for the loss of government instruments entrusted to him, and whether the order of recovery passed by the defendants is legal and valid.
Final Decision
The second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 20.02.2010 passed by the District Judge – I, Bhandara in Regular Civil Appeal No.102/2006 and the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2006 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhandara in Regular Civil Suit No.187/2001 are set aside. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff stands dismissed.
Law Points
- Government servant liability for loss of government property
- entrustment of property
- burden of proof
- negligence
- Bombay Civil Services Rules
- 1959
- Rule 3
- Section 34 of Specific Relief Act
- 1963
