(1.) BOTH Regular Second Appeal Nos.2175 of 1992 (Darshan Singh Vs. The State of Punjab) and 2176 of 1992 (Mohinder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab) are being disposed of together as common question of law is involved in these appeals.
(2.) BOTH the appellants while working as Conductors were terminated and had challenged their respective order of termination. FACTS-R.S.A. NO.2175 OF 1992 Appellant Darshan Singh, who was appointed as Conductor on 9.9.1970, had proceeded on sanctioned leave upto 6.11.1978. He had then applied for extension of leave as he could not resume duty. As per appellant, Darshan Singh, he was not informed about non- sanction of his leave and under bonafide belief that it stood extended and sanctioned, he continued to avail his leave. However, when he came back to rejoin duty he was informed that he had already been terminated on 28.12.1978. The appellant would plead that this order was communicated to him and he had accordingly challenged the same on the ground that no charge sheet was issued to him and no enquiry was held, which was essential legal requirement under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. Respondent-Department appeared and raised an objection about the maintainability of the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Plea also was that the civil Court at Jalandhar did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit and that it was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The order of termination was justified by pointing out that the same was passed after following rules of natural justice wherein the appellant was informed through registered letters that he was being treated as absent from duty. He was also given an opportunity before passing the order, it is claimed.
(3.) THE respondent Department had filed a reply, raising a plea that the suit was barred by limitation and that no notice under Section 80 CPC was served before filing the suit. Respondents would plead that the appellant had abandoned his job of his own accord by remaining willfully absent from duty. As per the stand in the reply, the appellant had not proceeded on any sanctioned leave and rather he was absent w.e.f. 13.5.1977 without any leave, information or prior permission. It was, thus, submitted that the question of sanctioning or non-sanctioning the leave did not arise in this case as no leave application was ever submitted by the appellant. In fact, appellant had been directed to resume duty through a registered letter dated 24.5.1977 but he failed to do so. THEreafter, a show cause notice was issued to him through a registered letter dated 13.6.1977 to explain the reasons of his absence. He was also called to resume duty through publication of notices in the news paper like Tribune and Akali Patrika of dated 12.7.1977 and 13.7.1977 and in Nawan Zaman dated 14.7.1977. Despite all this, the appellant did not resume duty and accordingly action had followed.