SONIKA 2026.07.31 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-3579-2023 (O&M) --2-- Corporation filed a suit alleging that respondent No.1-Ram Asra (since deceased), while serving as Godown Assistant at Pharpur Nabha, in connivance with another official, namely, Subash Chand, T.A., had embezzled wheat weighing 4505.44.570 quintals, thereby causing financial loss to the Corporation. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him pursuant to a charge-sheet dated 30.07.2003. The department after following the due procedure appointed Sh.S.S. Lamba, as Inquiry Officer vide order dated 09.09.2003 to look into the charges levelled against respondent No.1- Ram Asra. The Inquiry Officer after conducting inquiry and affording full opportunity, submitted his report dated 09.04.2004 holding him (respondent No.1) guilty and, thereafter, a show cause notice dated 17.05.2004 was served upon Ram Asra, to which he submitted a detailed reply dated 05.07.2004. Thereafter, the competent authority passed an order directing recovery of the amount from the delinquent employee. Since Ram Asra retired on 31.03.2011 and subsequently expired on 11.01.2012, the suit was filed against his legal representative for recovery of the alleged loss. 3. Upon notice, the respondent-defendant appeared and filed written statement while submitting that the suit was barred by limitation besides contesting merits of the claim as well. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief for recovery as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD 3. Whether suit is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed and suppressed SONIKA 2026.07.31 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-3579-2023 (O&M) --3-- the material facts as alleged? OPD 6. Relief.” 4. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”), after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.2020 while holding that the suit was not maintainable being barred by limitation. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant(s)-plaintiff(s) preferred the first appeal, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as “First Appellate Court”), thereby affirming the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) contends that both the Courts below erred in law while dismissing the suit being barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submits that the cause of action continued till the retirement of Ram Asra i.e. on 31.03.2011 and, therefore, the suit filed on 22.04.2014 was within limitation and deserves to be entertained. It is further submitted that the departmental inquiry clearly proved the misconduct and the financial loss caused to the Corporation, as such, the appellant(s) were entitled to recover the amount. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside and the suit preferred at the instance of appellant(s)-plaintiff(s) deserves to be decreed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant(s) and gone through the paper book as well as the records of the case. 8. A perusal of the record shows that the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 09.04.2004 holding respondent No.1-Ram Asra, along with Subash Chand and Sewa Singh, responsible for the embezzlement. Upon SONIKA 2026.07.31 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-3579-2023 (O&M) --4-- consideration of the said report and the reply filed by the delinquent employee to the show cause notice, the Managing Director passed the final order of recovery on 27.04.2005, given effect through office order dated 03.05.2005. As pleaded in Para No.14 of the plaint, the appellant(s)- plaintiff(s) have set out two dates giving rise to the cause of action i.e. 03.05.2005, the date of the recovery order and 31.03.2011, the date on which respondent No.1-Ram Asra retired. Taking the later date, which is more favourable to the appellant(s), the limitation period of three-years applicable here expired on 31.03.2014. The suit, however, was admittedly filed on 22.04.2014, after this period had run out. If the computation is made from the earlier date of 03.05.2005, the delay is even greater. Thus, on either date pleaded by the appellant(s)-plaintiff(s), the suit is time-barred. 9. Resultantly, in view of the discussion made herein-above, finding no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of facts and law, recorded by the Courts below; there being no misreading or misinterpretation of pleadings and evidence, the present appeal being devoid of merits is thus, dismissed. 10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 23.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/ No SONIKA 2026.07.31 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document